No Place in Atheist Thought for Thinking

 


The other day the CARM atheists surpassed themselves in stupidity. Given a prefectly good God argument, a valid reason to believe in God, they reufussed to answer it saying it was not a real argument it's not about tangible things. The argument was an all purpose disproof of anti-God argued based upon possible worlds. It was based upon Theistic proto pan psychism (the idea that our reality is a thought in a mind, the mind we call "God"). That defeats any possible world because it means that there is no possible world that is not a product of God's imagination. The argument was based upon two other arguments I make all the time. the first was the argument that God is the ground of being, And the Transcendental Signifier argument. I found a way to make them both fit the "thought in the mind of God" argument.

(1) God is the depth of being, all being has depth (god is being itself, same thing). Any world must contain being and any form of being in indicative that God is present.

(2) TS signifier argument shows that the organizing Principe is necessary to any organized world. thus god must be in all organized worlds. This might be bridged with the the notion of the world in the mind of god.

The person I put it up for never got to it until it was full of trash talk and stupid pissing contests. The others did a ridicule gauntlet thing and just mocked it and said stupid useless things for well over 46 posts.

Radiology:

I truly enjoy arguments like this. "God is great and perfect and wonderful because I say so and don't question me!"

Meta, you seem like a fairly intelligent person. If someone knocks on your door and tells you to buy this oil because it'll fix all your health problems and make your .. 'male member'.. grow to epic proportions --- Do you buy it? I assume you don't. Your God arguments are nothing more than snake oil. You can exclaim all of the reasons why your God must exist. Why? Because you invented him and you invented the reasons, too.

Maybrick:

Snake oil generously applied to those fine new robes being worn by that emperor.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you didn't' read it! you trying to tell all about them and you didn't read them!

Radiology

I did - the first line of your argument. Don't play dumb.

Yes, don't play dumb. I can't answer arguements because I can't think logically so I quite reading after the first line because it's too hard for me, but you are playing dumb."

My answer: at least I have to  play. like reading the first line really counts as reading the argument.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

since you have 0 knowledge of theology, you don't know beans about Christianity (evidenced by the fact that you think theology is done by taking the OT literally) you don't have a right to talk about it. you are spouting Pi pi kaka which you know not of.

HillyBilly

Existing isn't a thing that can love or forgive. To say it is is to make a category mistake. As is confusing something with the ground of that thing. So, you've got double category mistake. None of this has anything at all to do with the OT. So, try again. And, psst, read up on theology yourself if you don't think maximal goodness is a property of God.

This is an extremely moronic answer because it means he has no idea what Tillich's notion of being itself is about. Rather than learn about it he just uses his usual literalism, he knows "existence can't be a person" so he's not going to wonder about it any further. He does know that God is supposed to have some sort of human like qualities that stem from consciousness and in his literalistic thinking existence is not a person so it can't have those qualities. Never mind what Tillich actually meant by the term, which I did explain. Even when they are kind of smart they are really stupid.

The idiot Radiology can't just leave it hanging that he is stupid stupid to read more than one line so  he tries to invent a reason why he could see at a glance my argument is no good. Of course this has to be after he went back and read more becuase I shamed him into it.

Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

I already explained why it isn't an argument - because for you to make the argument you were forced to invent terminology that defines your God as untestable. Get past this and we will have something to talk about. Until then your arguments are just jibberjabber.

He's insisting that I made up the term "being itself" no one ever used it before I did. So if I made it up it must be stupid he doesn't have to answer it.

Meta

I did not invent any terms for any of htat. every bit of that came form established thinkers who aware called great one was an atheist.

if you were educated you would know that. Tillich and Derrdia are not that obscure. you don't know stuff and you refuse to admit it you should just stay out of areas you don't know.

I dont' try to tell Hans about math.

Dneh:

I'd politely point out that science actually works. I might even go as far as to say that some aspects of philosophy have helped that.

Science "works" that is it's covering subject matter that is given in sense data so we can empirical observations about it. Does that mean that it always favors atheism over beilef in God? No of course not. Does it mean that philosophy and logic can't offer valid reasons to believe in God? NO, why would it? All it really means is the most immediately trivial aspects of life are more amenable to scinece.

Here we have that stupidity again, where the atheist says "scinece works." that proves its veracity so working is indicative of truth. But religious works too, the religious experience studies show that religion makes good on it's claims to transform our lives and make them better. That's working stops being indicative of truth. Just because it's an advantage doesn't mean it's true. In the world logic we call this "a double standard," or "special pleading" or "contradiction." But that's not scinece, science would all of those fallacies.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't know anything about philosophy. of cousre I'm the last person because I showed you up.

Dneh 

I know enough about philosophy to know its pretty much a worthless subject, at least for me.

In part of the exchange he says I'm angry as that's supposed to prove I'm wrong. only wrong people get angry.

Meta

O think I'm angry hu. right in front of your face they treat me like **** and you think I'm angry what a genius. 

Dneh

Oh poor Meta!

O poor meta, O poor asshole. it goes on this way post after post all down the page. nothing in that whole thread that's even worth reading. I think this is all pretty hateful. That's evidence of hate group as well as shallow thinking and stupidity. they didn't even try to answer the arguments. they saw immediately they are not even willing to hold a civilized discussion. They are there to mock, period.

why would anyone want to be in a movement based upon being stupid? This exhibits the aspect of atheist ideology that is the most dangerous the reduction of thinking and all knowledge to scientism. Scientism is the obsessive love of science to the point of making it the all pervasive ideology and replacing all other forms of thought. That's what they have done here. Logic has no place in thinking now it's all scinece. Scinece works but it only works as long as it's in agreement wiht atheist ideology.

I just got through posting 2 essays on the tendency of atheism to reduce all knowledge to scinece.

Instructive exmple of athiest ideology used as propganda to evoke the reducitionist ploy

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

The human brain like that of other mammals is composed of cells that are capable of directing a body. It functions so as to keep the organism alive and see to it that it reproduces or insures that related members which share its DNA will survive and reproduce. It accomplishes this through instincts coupled with emotions. We are all familiar with those basic instincts that we share with other mammals.

Fear, anger, love are all emotions that are shared by most if not all social mammals and are part of the brain. Humans are a bit more complicated in that they form complex social and cooperative relationships necessary for survival. In addition, they are born in an immature state and require years of nurturing in order to successfully reach reproductive age. Again, those emotions related to love and empathy are paramount in this activity. We love our offspring and our parents. This is biological and can be observed in the behavior of other mammals. We even share altruistic tendencies where an adult will put itself in danger to protect offspring. There are many examples of other animals that do this.

Knowing what we know about humans and human social behavior how is it that Gods also exhibit many of these exact emotions and behavioral characteristics? In general Gods are not social and do not posses an organic brain designed with emotions for its survival. They are immortal. Why would they “love”, support or nurture anything?

So why do we find in Gods the same instincts found in biological organisms? Gods can be angry, jealous, selfish, and loving of their offspring. Can anybody explain why a god that needs nothing, is non social, can create an entire universe out of thin air, is all powerful, all knowing, and exists outside of time would share any animal instincts with humans and other animals? Is God an animal with an animal brain that is responsible for survival and reproduction of a species?

This is just another one of those cases where the atheist is trying to evoke atheist ideology as though it's an epistemological gate keeping exercise. If you can't meet our criteria then you fail the knowledge test, like not knowing baic math or something.It's nothing more than a propaganda device. there's no reason why we should have to meet that criteria becuase its' not part of our theory of knowledge,. God is not given in sense data so he can't be subject to scientific scrutiny. All you are saying is "I want to put God over here in a category I can deal with." that's the basic ploy of reductionism. reduce all knowledge the one I can control.
 ,,,,Of course God is portrayed by humans as having human-like qualities becuase how else could we relate to God? How are we going to relate to something that's beyond our understanding? We are always looking for patterns that we can understand and that make sense to us. That's what science does. No scientist says "the universe is beyond our understanding, we are just imposing the patters we want to see so that we can pick out and that make sense but in reality there is no sense to be made." Even scientific schools that go far enough as to say there are no rational pattern, we impose the pattern don't say, "therefore we can't understand the universe so let's forget scinece."
.....God is beyond our understanding, but we have to speak of the divine because we are verbal and social animals. So we bridge the gap between known and unknown by drawing analogies to what we know. We know the father figure so we see God as a father. We know from experiencing God's presence there is some point of contact there.

I have no need of that hypothesis