A new and highly disappointed member

[coelacanth]

We do have a debate forum, and some here that chomp at the bit for a good one on one respectful debate.

.

One of my favorite things to do! :yes

Sounds excellent. I don't know precisely what you believe, Biblereader, but is there a particular topic you would like to go for?

I'm not sure what your views are about interpretation of the Bible, but I started this one earlier this morning and was waiting for a reply still:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=38101

 

[coelacanth]

A position adheres to something. Atheism adheres to nothing. Therefore, to be logically consistent, one cannot consider atheism to be a position and a mere lack of theism.

Or, if you're a more visual learner, your second premise in particular is an:

 

[Guest]

I'm really not sure how that clarified anything after a more lengthy explanation, but I went ahead and did it. I said I was an atheist, of course it is in regards to the god-question. I'd like to know why atheism is silly and irrational.

A position adheres to something. Atheism adheres to nothing. Therefore, to be logically consistent, one cannot consider atheism to be a position and a mere lack of theism.

Awwww... you beat me! .... WAIT! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Haha. Well, perhaps you can use some tips. My argument is logically valid. Thus, if you wish to attack the argument then you must attack the premises. You can attack my definition of position. (Good luck with that.) Or, you can redefine atheism and make my argument inapplicable to you. (Which appears to be what you are attempting to do below.)

What I described is a possible philosophical perspective (a.k.a. position, yes it is synonymous with "perspective" here). You're trying to play a twisted word game to cancel things out and it's not working very well for you.

I am adhering to the definition of atheism you provided. Atheism is not a belief, correct? If atheism is not a belief and this is "plain and simple," then atheism does not adhere to anything. Following this definition, atheism cannot be a philosophical perspective. It is merely the absence of something.

I'd like to request your explanation as to what you mean when you say "a position adheres to something", though.

A position is the cognitive assent to a claim or claims. It is, as you state, synonymous with perspective, point of view, opinion, and so on. Thus, to have a position on something means one accepts something to be true or representative of reality.

Atheism, as you define it, cannot be considered a position because it does not adhere to any claim or claims as true or representative of reality. If you claim atheism does adhere to some claim or claims, then you have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

Additionally, I don't believe in a personal God. Why couldn't I adhere to the position that I don't believe in a personal God?

What do you mean by "do not believe?" If you mean "lack of theism," then no it is not a perspective or a position. If you mean "no God exists," then sure it can be a perspective.

I clicked around a bit and saw you have made this nonsensical assertion, or something very like it, before.

Nonsensical assertion? Haha. That's rich.

What is your position on the ancient jar of grape jelly that commands when earthquakes and volcanoes occur from the safety of it's outer casing in the upper mantle?

I do not have a position.

 

[Guest]

A position adheres to something. Atheism adheres to nothing. Therefore, to be logically consistent, one cannot consider atheism to be a position and a mere lack of theism.

Or, if you're a more visual learner, your second premise in particular is an

Aw, how cute. He attempts to mock rather than present a logically coherent argument.

 

[coelacanth]

I called it an “Epic Fail†because it was pathetic, although veiled in a valid argument. Perhaps I should have reminded you that atheism, my mere lack of belief, is not the sum-total of my perspective on the god-question, or perhaps you should have asked. This is one reason that your second premise fails and it is something that you should have already known had you read my previous posts. You even quoted me as calling belief in God irrational and silly (I had actually said stupid) so you must have read some of it. That is something that I hold to be representative of reality. My position also goes beyond that to say that the odds of a theistic God actually existing are so incredibly infinitesimal that I do not allow the idea to affect the way I live, (I thought you would have picked that up from the example of the alien) AND that theism is dangerous to society. All of these things I had made clear, yet you completely ignored stated beliefs on the god-question and religion other than my atheism and baited me by feigning stupidity in order to deliberately lift things out of prior context and make it look like a victory. All of these things I had made clear, but you chose to focus on the one word “atheistâ€Â. That, my friend, constitutes an epic fail.

Yes, I admit, I perceived it to be extreme stupidity and that I just wanted to get rid of you by saying "Yes" when you first asked me this:

Does you consider atheism to be your position with regards to the god-question?

And of course I did. In the context, it was utterly stupid! When you pretend to be a moron you will be dismissed as such.

You did a fairly good job (not flawless) of logically taking the response I gave you to that particular question and running with it, and your justification regarding what constitutes a position is a good one. The argument was definitely valid, but not sound. I can only assume now that it’s because you’ve used it before and liked it, perhaps in a case where it was sound and your conclusion was therefore true. Not now. I haven’t heard that one before, though. (That's why I like doing this; it keeps you on your toes )

This thread is not a debate forum, but you at the very least seem a worthy adversary at this point, as long as you would focus this sort of reasoning to the relevant topic and not play silly games. I will happily take this topic to a different thread if you wish, but it's not of particular importance to me, unless, of course, you are applying your aforementioned post to me as well, reproduced here:

What do "atheists" (placed in quotations to distinguish from strong atheism) believe? It is a common assertion that "atheism" is merely the absence of theism. Something which has be hinted at in the post to which I initially responded. This means "atheists" have no beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God. They have no position, no perspective, nothing on the existence or non-existence of God. That makes for a curious situation.

If you stick by that and apply it to me, then we should continue to handle it first if you and I are going to discuss anything at all regarding God, because if you think I have “no beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of Godâ€Â. Or that I have “no position, no perspective, nothing on the existence or non-existence of God.â€Â
However, if you would like to continue it, perhaps a new thread should be started. Really I think the problem is just a semantic one, and not necessary to address unless you feel it really is an important point.

By the way, the ancient jar of grape jelly has just commanded me to commit 120 acts of infanticide by next Tuesday. One does not just disobey the jar of jelly. I’m going to do it. Do you have any position now?

 

[Guest]

Perhaps I should have reminded you that atheism, my mere lack of belief, is not the sum-total of my perspective on the god-question, or perhaps you should have asked. This is one reason that your second premise fails and it is something that you should have already known had you read my previous posts.

This is confusing the premises with the argument. The second premise deals with atheism. And, as you have clearly reiterated, atheism is a mere lack of theism. It is nothing more. The argument deals with the perspective that atheism is both the mere lack of theism and a position.

You even quoted me as calling belief in God irrational and silly (I had actually said stupid) so you must have read some of it.

Yes, I chose to not cite the stupid element. I did not wish to imply that you are stupid. And yes, I am aware your perspective is much broader than your proclaimed lack of theism.

My position also goes beyond that to say that the odds of a theistic God actually existing are so incredibly infinitesimal that I do not allow the idea to affect the way I live, (I thought you would have picked that up from the example of the alien) AND that theism is dangerous to society.

How ironic. It doesn't affect the way you live, and yet here you are.

All of these things I had made clear, yet you completely ignored stated beliefs on the god-question and religion other than my atheism and baited me by feigning stupidity in order to deliberately lift things out of prior context and make it look like a victory. All of these things I had made clear, but you chose to focus on the one word “atheistâ€Â.

You chose to define the term atheism as the mere lack of theism. You chose to claim atheism as a position.

And of course I did. In the context, it was utterly stupid! When you pretend to be a moron you will be dismissed as such.

Hehe. How cute. He criticizes rather than deal with the argument.

You did a fairly good job (not flawless) of logically taking the response I gave you to that particular question and running with it, and your justification regarding what constitutes a position is a good one. The argument was definitely valid, but not sound. I can only assume now that it’s because you’ve used it before and liked it, perhaps in a case where it was sound and your conclusion was therefore true. Not now.

You are correct. The argument is logically valid. And, as I clearly stated, the only way to counter the argument is to attack one or both of the premises. We seem to agree that the first premise is valid. Therefore, your counter rests on the second premise. For my response, see above.

I haven’t heard that one before, though.

It's original, so I would expect that.

If you stick by that and apply it to me, then we should continue to handle it first if you and I are going to discuss anything at all regarding God, because if you think I have “no beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of Godâ€Â. Or that I have “no position, no perspective, nothing on the existence or non-existence of God.â€Â

Do you believe God exists or God does not exist?

However, if you would like to continue it, perhaps a new thread should be started. Really I think the problem is just a semantic one, and not necessary to address unless you feel it really is an important point.

I will be happy to start a new thread. It is entitled "Amongst the Illogical: The Non-position Position or Atheism."

By the way, the ancient jar of grape jelly has just commanded me to commit 120 acts of infanticide by next Tuesday. One does not just disobey the jar of jelly. I’m going to do it. Do you have any position now?

Nope.

 

[coelacanth]

My apologies to minnesota if a particular comment which included the words "stupid" and "moron" came across as insulting or unneccessarily harsh.

Regarding the topic that has advanced this thread, I will move my response about where this thread has gone to the new thread that minnesota started. I can't post quite yet, however, going to work out, but one more thing.

By the way, the ancient jar of grape jelly has just commanded me to commit 120 acts of infanticide by next Tuesday. One does not just disobey the jar of jelly. I’m going to do it. Do you have any position now?

Nope.

If someone on your street believed this and you had newborn twins, would you still have no position regarding the jar of grape jelly? Would you deem that person to be sane? (This is really not a pointless line of questioning)

 

[Biblereader]

We do have a debate forum, and some here that chomp at the bit for a good one on one respectful debate.

.

One of my favorite things to do! :yes

I usually get very serious in my debates, though. People with easily hurt feelings, please do
not debate with me. I'm tired of hearing how I need to be nicer.
I just state the facts. That's all.
I believe the KJV bible is the only reliable version out there, I believe that we have a choice to follow Jesus, or not, I do NOT subscribe to the Calvinist's views. I believe there was a virgin birth, and I know Jesus rose again from the dead. I believe there are MANY things in the bible that I am either too immature, or just plain too human to be able to grasp, but I have faith that God tells only the truth, and that He keeps ALL of His promises.
I believe Jesus's blood shed on the cross paid for my sins, and for the sins of the whole world.
Whether or not you accept that free gift, is your decision.
Read Romans 10:9-11


Sounds excellent. I don't know precisely what you believe, Biblereader, but is there a particular topic you would like to go for?

I'm not sure what your views are about interpretation of the Bible, but I started this one earlier this morning and was waiting for a reply still:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=38101

 

[Guest]

My apologies to minnesota if a particular comment which included the words "stupid" and "moron" came across as insulting or unneccessarily harsh.

No worries.

By the way, the ancient jar of grape jelly has just commanded me to commit 120 acts of infanticide by next Tuesday. One does not just disobey the jar of jelly. I’m going to do it. Do you have any position now?

Nope.

If someone on your street believed this and you had newborn twins, would you still have no position regarding the jar of grape jelly? Would you deem that person to be sane? (This is really not a pointless line of questioning)

I would still have no position.

 

[Carol Lowery]

OK everyone....it seems we have a debate in progress. Yeahhhhhhhh

So out of respect to the newbies, let's take it to the debate forum brethern......thank-you. And may you be bless.

 

[coelacanth]

Ok,

A new thread was started and I just responded to it. The link was on a post by minnesota on page 2.

 

[John]

Evolutionist = step on my toes ;)

Uh-oh! Toes have been stepped on all over the science forum, then... ;) ;)

I got steel toed boots. ;)

 

[coelacanth]

Evolutionist = step on my toes ;)

Uh-oh! Toes have been stepped on all over the science forum, then... ;) ;)

I got steel toed boots. ;)

Can you kick with them or does it allow you to pretend it didn't happen? ;)

 

[John]

Can you kick with them or does it allow you to pretend it didn't happen? ;)

Depends

 

[coelacanth]

Can you kick with them or does it allow you to pretend it didn't happen? ;)

Depends

Well, you're apparently vehemently anti-evolution. I'm still wondering if you understand it. I was waiting for you to engage :armed

Sorry, I didn't see a "toe-stepping" smilie so I went with the next best thing ;)

 

[Captain Sarcastic]

Hello everyone,

I signed up thinking this might be a forum with the freedom to engage in a respectful intellectual debate from the perspective of an atheist who is highly skeptical about Christian beliefs, but interested in conversation with educated Christians about their belief structure. That seems to be prevented by the forum rules, and I will abide by them and make no further posts unless I have misinterpreted what is allowed. I can see the usefulness of forums where such things are not allowed, and I respect that this site maintains that it be banned. I only posted because I thought some people here might recommend where I could go to find a site with lots of Christians who are open-minded and willing to talk about such issues. Please do not direct me to atheist sites.

Thank you, and I hope I have not disturbed the peace by posting this.
Take care.

So, you're basically upset because Christians aren't "open-minded" enough to capitulate to your strident atheism? Is that it? While you aren't open-minded toward the Christianity espoused at a primarily Christian site? Wow.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I doubt if Christians would be as warmly received at an openly-atheist site as you have been welcomed here. Just my $.02 (before Obama taxes it, that is. ;) )

 

[John]

Well, you're apparently vehemently anti-evolution. I'm still wondering if you understand it. I was waiting for you to engage :armed

I feel the need for me to engage is time wasted. I have studied both sides, i know the truth and am content with it.

 

[jasoncran]

Hello everyone,

I signed up thinking this might be a forum with the freedom to engage in a respectful intellectual debate from the perspective of an atheist who is highly skeptical about Christian beliefs, but interested in conversation with educated Christians about their belief structure. That seems to be prevented by the forum rules, and I will abide by them and make no further posts unless I have misinterpreted what is allowed. I can see the usefulness of forums where such things are not allowed, and I respect that this site maintains that it be banned. I only posted because I thought some people here might recommend where I could go to find a site with lots of Christians who are open-minded and willing to talk about such issues. Please do not direct me to atheist sites.

Thank you, and I hope I have not disturbed the peace by posting this.
Take care.

So, you're basically upset because Christians aren't "open-minded" enough to capitulate to your strident atheism? Is that it? While you aren't open-minded toward the Christianity espoused at a primarily Christian site? Wow.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I doubt if Christians would be as warmly received at an openly-atheist site as you have been welcomed here. Just my $.02 (before Obama taxes it, that is. ;) )

I have found that to be true sofar with some athiests allbeit this site inho is a good as it challenge me in my thinking without leaving that sense of hopelesness that athiest site seem to affer( no moral direction) I've only been to a few, and athiesm is the idea there's no absolute truth, save evolution. I 've seen some weird people that make the most liberal people i know seem like nothing on one atheist site

Anyway welcome. jason

 

[coelacanth]

Well, you're apparently vehemently anti-evolution. I'm still wondering if you understand it. I was waiting for you to engage :armed

I feel the need for me to engage is time wasted. I have studied both sides, i know the truth and am content with it.

So have I, and I can't help but suspect there is a profound misunderstanding somewhere... or a head-in-the-sand ;) ... If you know the truth, please enlighten me.

 

[coelacanth]

Hello everyone,

I signed up thinking this might be a forum with the freedom to engage in a respectful intellectual debate from the perspective of an atheist who is highly skeptical about Christian beliefs, but interested in conversation with educated Christians about their belief structure. That seems to be prevented by the forum rules, and I will abide by them and make no further posts unless I have misinterpreted what is allowed. I can see the usefulness of forums where such things are not allowed, and I respect that this site maintains that it be banned. I only posted because I thought some people here might recommend where I could go to find a site with lots of Christians who are open-minded and willing to talk about such issues. Please do not direct me to atheist sites.

Thank you, and I hope I have not disturbed the peace by posting this.
Take care.

So, you're basically upset because Christians aren't "open-minded" enough to capitulate to your strident atheism? Is that it? While you aren't open-minded toward the Christianity espoused at a primarily Christian site? Wow.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I doubt if Christians would be as warmly received at an openly-atheist site as you have been welcomed here. Just my $.02 (before Obama taxes it, that is. ;) )

:biglol You certainly live up to your name, Cap'n.

That was my first post, and the welcome has been good so far. I'm open-minded and that's why I'm here. I like to communicate with smart people who think differently than I do, and it is most productive when the honesty is completely blunt and brutal.

And it's exactly that: Christians don't usually last long at atheist sites because whenever I've seen it, but not because of the welcome.

I'm able to handle it, why do you say I'm not open-minded?