• In total there are 16 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 16 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Vishnu
Intern
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:28 pm
13
Has thanked: 222 times
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

sonoman wrote: You didn't show anything let alone "empirical evidence". Your link just takes one back to your post
False again. It takes you to SkywardGnost attesting to his existence. There you go, the agnostic atheist exists. There are other empirical examples we can point you to as well.
sonoman wrote:which repeats the same irrationality that tries to claim the definition of one word equal the other when they don't at all.
Also false.

I brought up the words agnostic, atheist, theist/m, and gnosis/c.
I never equated any of these to each other. In fact, I was explaining differences between various usages of them.
So if your above statement was directed at my usage of any of those words, then it is, as I said, false.

However, I did say gnosis reflects knowledge, which it does.
I also said theism reflects belief in god, which it does.
Hence that can hardly constitute "when they don't at all."
Your qualifier "at all" at the end there denies any equivocation to any degree. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "ALL."
Thus, if your above statement was directed at my usage of gnosis as knowledge or theism as belief in god, then it is still, as I said, false.
While the Greeks, the ones who invented the word and it's definition (not you) certainly went on to employ gnosis in ways other than to merely mean "knowledge" (and hence why I never claimed or even so much as insinuated that such was it's only possible meaning), the fact remains that they DID use it to mean knowledge and that is the most common way in which it was used in ancient Greek literature. Therefore if someone were to have claimed gnosis cannot be equated to knowledge "at all" they would be wrong, just as if someone (no one here there though, and certainly not myself) were to have claimed gnosis "always" meant knowledge or "only" meant knowledge, they would be wrong as well.
sonoman wrote:Agnosticism is the only valid philosophy of scientific inquiry.
Agnosticism reflects lack of knowledge ("a" being used to indicate "without," as in "asexual," and gnosis indicating knowledge). Seems odd to assert that not knowing something can itself be a philosophy, and a scientific one at that. But whatever.
sonoman wrote:Atheism is invalidated from rationality because of jumping to conclusions about phenomena with too little data
Atheism indicates nothing about conclusions of phenomena, it indicates a lack of belief in a god. A lack of a belief hardly equates to a conclusion. I have no belief concerning what side the penny in my change tray is on, I have made no conclusions about whether it is on heads or whether it is on tails. I don't know, and I don't care, and I haven't taken a side for either of those two possibilities, even though they are the only two (so far as I can tell).

Since atheism only indicates a lack of belief and nothing more about anything else, one's atheism can only be invalidated by a subsequent belief.
sonoman wrote:and a marked tendency to deny any data at all that suggests there's more in heaven and earth than atheists realize, not ever factoring in future knowledge acquisition.
It only seems fair that knowledge acquired in the future won't effect someone's belief until the future, in particular, the future in which that knowledge is acquired.
Many of us here do not know whether, and thus do not yet believe, in life on other planets. We do grant that it's possible to acquire such knowledge in the future (in fact, some of us really hope we get such knowledge). But if that knowledge only lies in the future, then so does our belief.

Moreover, since, as I said, atheism indicates nothing about anything beyond a lack of belief in a deity, it seems like it would be difficult to quantify what atheists "realize" is "in heaven and earth." I know of some atheists who believe in souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc. They just don't believe in a god. Beyond that there is no consensus among atheists on any issue.
sonoman wrote:And again, I reiterate that one can tell the difference between atheists and agnostics


The difference between atheists and agnostic what? What is it these don't-knowers aren't knowing? If you are still referring to belief in god, then as I have explained (and countless others before me have explained as well)- there is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism, just as there is no dichotomy between Gnosticism and theism. One further specifies the other, as it can about a great many other things as well.
sonoman wrote:on these and most any religious forum where atheists are there to attack theists and theism because true agnostics will not engage in ad hominen attacks on theists and theistic views of spiritual matters.


No true Scotsman fallacy.

First of all, as I've sufficiently explained already, atheism only concerns lack of belief in a god, and many atheists, thus "spiritual matters" would simply concern general skepticism, not atheism or theism, since I also know of several theists who are naturalists and do not believe in anything "spiritual".
Likewise, as I've mentioned, some atheists, including some agnostic atheists, believe in a soul and type of afterlife and other spiritual matters.

So since there exist even theists who "attack" "spiritual matters," I'd find it hard to imagine there are no agnostics who do not do likewise. I know Neil DeGrasse Tyson identifies as agnostic concerning the existence of god, he "attacks" spiritual matters. Same went for Carl Sagan. Same goes for Bart Ehrman. These men would be just as, if not more, critical of many of your supernatural claims made on this site.
sonoman wrote:But it's not an agnostic forum environment here at all.
It is for those here who do not know that a god exists. Even atheists who do not. Such as SkywardGnost.
sonoman wrote:It is a war zone of atheist hostility.
There have been theists here on Booktalk who have never experienced hostility. Of course, they also weren't as much of a deliberate shit-stirrer as you.
sonoman wrote:I'm here to expose the Fatal Flaws of the atheist philosophy.
And many other folks are here to expose the fatal flaws in your claims made here.
sonoman wrote:It's all part and parcel of the End Times
Our other stuff aside, what is it here you mean by "End Times"? Given that you do not identify as an orthodox Christian, I'm guessing you might not be using this phrase the same way they do. What I mean is, are you referring to like the rapture, antichrist, and all that kind of stuff?
sonoman wrote:You don't seem to know the definition of Gnosis: it means "knowledge of God", not just "knowledge".
You don't seem to know the first thing about Greek. To be expected though, after the way you embarrassed yourself over "logos".

The Greeks invented the word and they hardly used it exclusively in regards to "knowledge of god."

In regards to knowledge in general
“Does it opine that which is not, or is it impossible even to opine that which is not? Reflect: Does not he who opines bring his opinion to bear upon something or shall we reverse ourselves and say that it is possible to opine, yet opine nothing?”
“That is impossible.”
“Then he who opines opines some one thing.”
“Yes.”
“But surely that which is not could not be designated as some one thing, but most rightly as nothing at all. To that which is not we of necessity assigned nescience, and to that which is, knowledge (gnosis).”
“Rightly,” he said.
“Then neither that which is nor that which is not is the object of opinion.”
“It seems not.”
“Then opinion would be neither nescience nor knowledge.”
“So it seems.”
“Is it then a faculty outside of these, exceeding either knowledge in lucidity or ignorance in obscurity?”
“It is neither.”
“But do you deem opinion something darker than knowledge but brighter than ignorance?”
“Much so,” he said.- Plato's Republic 478b-c
In regards to science
In this way, then, divide all science into two arts, calling the one practical (praktikos), and the other purely intellectual (gnostikos). - Plato's The Statesman 258e
In regards to word syllables
the genus of the elements admits of a knowledge (gnosis) more vivid and authoritative than that of the syllable- Plato's Theaetetus 206b
Etc. and so on it could go.
sonoman wrote:We aren't talking about agnosticism but atheism.
Again, there's no dichotomy between the two. Moreover, YES we are talking about agnosticism, since SkywardGnost brought it up, and you responded (with a falsehood).
sonoman wrote:There's no way except in your own private definition


The clarifications I gave were hardly private or new. Just read more. And read literature more up to date. And read literature more relevant to the topic about which you presume to write. You'll avoid looking as ignorant as you have here.
sonoman wrote:that "gnosis" could ever involve disbelief in God.
It can when the one lacking belief claims such gnosis of no god.

That does not include myself, of course, but I've met plenty of atheists who do claim to know there is no god, just as I have met atheists who admit to not know if there is a god (thus making them an agnostic atheist).

And it's odd that you would argue against that here because it is that very claim to know there is no god that you keep trying to demonstrate is irrational and "fatally flawed."
Last edited by Vishnu on Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
sonoman
All Star Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:52 pm
12
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

"I know of some atheists who believe in souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc. They just don't believe in a god."

Topic over. I can't and won't respond to someone who doesn't understand words have their meanings for the purpose clarifying things, not confusing them as you do, trying to change the definition of atheism to a hodge-podge of what would be described by most people I know as spiritualism which again I know of no atheists embracing but you posting it as if it were a given fact. Atheists post against souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc, Your idea of "atheism" seems tailor-made for this thread, i.e., it's just another example of how no matter what I post that never receives adequate logically reasoned answers, e.g. this Nth topic challenge to atheist belief system, return posts are either composed of mostly slander or cheap dismissals of clear personal experience reports like trying to belittle my Ariel Lome painting which just about any person I've ever met who knows anything about art recognizes as a most definite work of unique art, and I gave the examples of the two most prominent Bay Area curators of art museum's opinions. I can't argue against small minded people who don't reason well. It's especially annoying when they think they know everything better than others do and yet show the exact same blindness to any contradictory facts of science or history or logic that one finds in fundamentalist believers in God. The proof is in the pudding which is dogma liberally laced with personal attack instead of any reasoned argument.

There's no reason to continue discussion with minds closed to reasoned argumentation and ones prone to inventing new meanings for words and common knowledge just to "win" some atheist's idea of "answering" my questions. It isn't reasoned argument anymore but then again I didn't expect anything else. But there are my limits to dealing with closed minds. It's really too bad true agnostics don't seem to create forums or chase Christians around religious forum discussions bashing their fundamentalist mirror-images. Don't have that anger propelling them I suspect as atheists do which in turn creates the atheist iconic stamp of intolerance of theistic beliefs and proneness to political attack of them.

I'm making this my new policy here. I post a challenging topic. I will respond to intelligent questions but not to slander or poorly reasoned defenses of atheistic beliefs that rely on creating double-standards, i.e., new meanings for common words, denial of recognized authority when it counters atheistic beliefs, diversion of topic, etc. i.e. I'm here for debate, not target practice.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

I can't and won't respond to someone who doesn't understand words have their meanings for the purpose clarifying things, not confusing them as you do, trying to change the definition of atheism to a hodge-podge of what would be described by most people I know as spiritualism which again I know of no atheists embracing but you posting it as if it were a given fact.
Then don't respond, you're not on Vishnu's level. I know of atheists who believe the things he said as well. You have this childish worldview where anything that doesn't accord with your beliefs is therefore wrong, and you blame everyone else for doing the exact same thing. It's hypocritical and dishonest.

You're nowhere near as sharp as the majority of people on this forum, Stahrwe included. Stop acting like you're smart. I don't care if that's insulting, it's the truth. Have some humility or stop posting.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

It's really no different from people who might make posts against theists in general, sonoman. Doing that, in my opinion, isn't valid for the same reason that it's not valid for you to post against atheists in general. Would you agree that theists might differentiate themselves from one another in various ways? We can't assume we know what the typical theist is, as the category even includes some who say they don't believe in God. Same with atheists--it may bug you or not make sense to you, but atheists have a wide spread over the beliefs map.
User avatar
Vishnu
Intern
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:28 pm
13
Has thanked: 222 times
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

sonoman wrote:Topic over.

No.

But if you wish to retreat all defeated and flustered, 'searing your conscience with a hot iron', that's your prerogative.
We'll make due without you, just as we did before you got here.
sonoman wrote:I can't and won't respond to someone who doesn't understand words have their meanings for the purpose clarifying things, not confusing them as you do,


The confusion as to what atheism is clearly lies on your end. If you want to specify the characteristics of an atheist beyond it's one and only definition (no belief in god) then you simply use more of those very things which you admit are for the purpose of clarification- WORDS. Use more WORDS. That was the whole point here. Using more WORDS to further specify what type of atheist is exactly what SkywardGnost was doing (i.e. agnostic atheist).

And yet when he did the very thing you are advocating right here & now, you tried (and failed) to chastise him for it.

The definition of atheism is simple and generic. Just like its counterpart- theism. The word IS generic, that's just the way it is, too bad for any atheist who doesn't like it just because it means he can't then use an argument against a Christian theist to refute a Muslim theist or a Hindu theist.
And likewise, too bad for you if the FACT that atheism is an equally generic word frustrates you and ruins all your straw-men.
sonoman wrote:trying to change the definition of atheism


You are a liar. I have done no such thing. I have always defined it here as a lack of belief in god.
Which it is.

And I can show some evidence to support that such is the definition of the word. You however have never shown evidence of atheism having any other definition beyond that.

As per Merriam-Webster (an actual dictionary, unlike you:

Image

That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

As per Oxford (an actual dictionary, unlike you):

Image

That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

As per American Heritage (an acutal dictionary, unlike you):

Image

That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

As per Collins English (and actual dictionary, unlike you):

Image

That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

And likewise, that's the only way I've ever defined the word in this thread. NOTHING more.

So all the stuff you keep trying (and failing) to insert into the definition of atheism is wrong and simply describes other characteristics a human being can have which are mutually exclusive to their belief or lack of belief in a god.

You fail.
sonoman wrote:change the definition of atheism to a hodge-podge of what would be described by most people I know as spiritualism
A further lie. The definition I have consistently always used in this thread for the word atheism is LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.

NOTHING more.

That's actually a very concise definition and hardly a hodge-podge at all.

And I sure as hell have NEVER included "spiritualism" in that definition which I have always used here, and you will fail to produce any instance of myself having done so.

Just as an atheist can be a lawyer, just as an atheist can be a cashier, just as an atheist can be a republican, just as an atheist can be a democrat, just as an atheist can be an American, just as an atheist can be Japanese, etc.,

so also can an atheist be a believer in a soul, in an afterlife, in miracles, etc..

You are obstinately trying to conflate details that are not determined upon whether one believes in a god with the actual belief or disbelief itself. You err in doing so.
sonoman wrote:which again I know of no atheists embracing but you posting it as if it were a given fact.
Because it is a given fact. I know of some atheists who believe in several of the things I mentioned in my previous post. I can introduce you to a few of them if you like. Do you have a Facebook? You can hit up this guy for an informative chat to start you off.
sonoman wrote:Atheists post against souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc,


Correction- some atheists post against such things. And it is their prerogative to do so. But they do so not because of their atheism, but as I said, they do so because of their general skepticism.

I know of theists who post against such things as well (and I can likewise introduce you to them if you like), would it be wise to define theism and characterize all theists as being the same as these skeptical naturalistic ones I just mentioned?

Obviously not, for you yourself and many other theists are not like that. And likewise, not all atheists are like what you described here, and it is just as wrong to try and characterize them all that way.
sonoman wrote:Your idea of "atheism" seems tailor-made for this thread, i.e.,
Well, given that "my" idea of atheism which I have consistently always used here is the idea of atheism taken directly from academic dictionaries on the English language, my idea is of atheism is thus tailor-made by the English speaking community, for the English-speaking community.
Which of course, includes this thread, since we've all been using English here (sans a little Greek from myself). So in that much you are right. Too bad being right is out of character for you. But it's a start, let's see if you can keep it up.
*Whoops, after reading further, it appears you can't keep it up, and are right back to your usual form.*
sonoman wrote:I can't argue against small minded people who don't reason well. It's especially annoying when they think they know everything better than others do and yet show the exact same blindness to any contradictory facts of science or history or logic that one finds in fundamentalist believers in God.
Ah, I see you've been engaging in soliloquy then.
sonoman wrote:The proof is in the pudding which is dogma liberally laced with personal attack instead of any reasoned argument.

There's no reason to continue discussion with minds closed to reasoned argumentation
Then put down the mirror and drop the soliloquy. Problem solved.
sonoman wrote:and ones prone to inventing new meanings for words and common knowledge just to "win" some atheist's idea of "answering" my questions.
I've already refuted such false accusations of "inventing new meanings" above, so I refer to that to spare redundancy.
sonoman wrote:It isn't reasoned argument anymore but then again I didn't expect anything else. But there are my limits to dealing with closed minds. It's really too bad true agnostics don't seem to create forums or chase Christians around religious forum discussions bashing their fundamentalist mirror-images. Don't have that anger propelling them I suspect as atheists do which in turn creates the atheist iconic stamp of intolerance of theistic beliefs and proneness to political attack of them.
You truly are unfamiliar with the 'no true-Scotsman fallacy', aren't you? What irony that you commit a logical fallacy in the same keystroke in which you claim a lack reason. Seems that lack of reason is with you.

But of course, the rest of us already knew that from day 1.
sonoman wrote:I'm making this my new policy here. I post a challenging topic. I will respond to intelligent questions but not to slander or poorly reasoned defenses of atheistic beliefs that rely on creating double-standards, i.e., new meanings for common words, denial of recognized authority when it counters atheistic beliefs, diversion of topic, etc. i.e. I'm here for debate, not target practice.
So we'll see you right back here in a few then?

Meh.

The fact is, you have been utterly refuted beyond all possibility of rebuttal.

I win.

You lose.

You will never deny it.

I have spoken.
Last edited by Vishnu on Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

Vishnu just left chicago ..... and he's bound for new orleans
i said
Vishnu just left chicago ..... and he's bound for new orleans

working his way from one to the other
and all points in between

:punk:

sung to old zz top tune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN69GC2amTg
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

"You're nowhere near as sharp as the majority of people on this forum, Stahrwe included. Stop acting like you're smart. I don't care if that's insulting, it's the truth. Have some humility or stop posting."

Sonoman is exercising his freedom as an independent thinker.

From a liberal perspective, we should applaud epistemological diversity, particularly in this country of ours that values autonomy so highly.

We need to understand why most people bristle when their core values and beliefs are pressed. To implicitly or explicitly imply they are somehow irrational for interpreting the world in the manner they do is to invite dissension.

There is much knowledge snobbery going on here. You're not doing a very good job staying clear of it either, Interbane.

It seems that some people are eager to support a social /cultural movement that declares spiritual experience as nothing more than delusional psychosis, having no substantive value to the human experience.
Too many people confirm their lives
based on their spiritual and religious convictions. Many of these people are just as rational in their daily lives as you and others that share your worldview. They are not stupid. They are not psychotic. They value their freedom to believe what they do and not be alienated by those that think differently. These people will not separate Faith from Self. And they shouldn't. As defenders of liberal values, we encourage them to speak and not remain silent.
Last edited by ant on Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

ant wrote:Sonoman is exercising his freedom as an independent thinker.
he certainly is, including independence from reason at times. (hey i'm just as bad)
ant wrote: we should applaud epistemological diversity
"i haven't heard it called that before", as sting said when someone called his music a mofo. :D
ant wrote:We need to understand why most people bristle when their core values and beliefs are pressed.
is it because they associate their beliefs with their sense of self and cannot have them challenged without feeling personally attacked? (jihad anyone?)
ant wrote:Too many people confirm their lives
based on their spiritual and religious convictions. Many of these people are just as rational in their daily lives as you and others that share your worldview.
yes but how many of these people have a mail order sword called paxcalibur!
ant wrote:They are not stupid.
we're all a bit stupid about something
ant wrote:They are not psychotic.
some of them must be, aren't we all a little psychotic about something?
ant wrote:They value their freedom to believe what they do
and you value your freedom to disagree.
ant wrote:and not be alienated by those that think differently.
surely they alienate themselves by claiming to be prophets and neglecting to address questions and concerns about their whacky walls of text. (not that there might not be a point or two floating around in there)
ant wrote:These people will not separate Faith from Self. And they shouldn't.
yes they should.
ant wrote:As defenders of liberal values, we encourage them to speak and not remain silent.
exactly, i encourage ant, Inter and sonoman and everyone else to speak and not remain silent (not that any of you were) :D and that's a good thing.

but even better when we all crawl toward the light together.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

This thread is fun. I disagree with Vishnu about the content of atheism. Atheism is not merely the negative rejection of theism, but is a positive scientific vision that says there is nothing beyond materialist knowledge. Atheism rejects belief in miracles.

The challenge is to explain language in terms of matter. The meaning of spirit is closely linked to the meaning of words. Words are material, but have a complex nature as representing things by linguistic symbols.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Nth, the number that destroys atheist philosophy for all time.

Unread post

Robert wrote: Atheism... is a positive scientific vision that says there is nothing beyond materialist knowledge.
really?

i'm an "atheist mysterist" in that i reject literalised metaphors like yahweh allah and historical jesus (but accept them metaphorically) and i embrace the mystery behind all things, the mystery of existence and am quite prepared to accept that there is far more beyond materialist knowledge than could possibly be contained by it.

i'm also a non limitationalist, in that i dont like limits (except Austin City Limits of course)

and above all a lover of freedom.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”