Home  Sign In  Search  Date Ideas  Join  Forums  Singles Groups  - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!


1/29/2015 1:39:55 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from turkalurk82:
Btw, merely, calling something a "word salad" as if it supports anything, implies a fallacy of personal incredulity. You should become familiar with this fallacy, if you desire to keep your beliefs rational. Its a very easy trap to fall into. I suppose thats why I consider myself agnostic. Its the most rational position, because to argue for the certain nonexistence of all the myriad of god concepts would be incredulous. Therefore, atheism without agnosticism, would be incredulous. Stong atheism is easily defeated. Therefore, all forms of strong atheists use the same blind faith to claim their position as the religious fundies that they oppose.



I just wanted to give this it's own thread. The phrase claimed as "word salad," was "Potentiality being actualized" in the context of a monistic concept of a Supreme Being.

Meet singles at DateHookup.com, we're 100% free! Join now!

DateHookup.com - 100% Free Personals


1/29/2015 10:11:49 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014




1/31/2015 9:28:20 AMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 
nursecutie32
Novi, MI
35, joined Oct. 2014


What exactly is the question

1/31/2015 10:50:46 AMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

olderthandirt20
Over 4,000 Posts! (5,853)
Waldron, AR
71, joined Jul. 2014


I don't think I'm qualified to argue this subject.

1/31/2015 11:33:32 AMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from nursecutie32:
What exactly is the question


The question is whether or not strong atheists practice hypocrisy, because to claim that ALL claims of god are false, is an argument from personal incredulity.


The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P.
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity


You seem more like an agnostic atheist to me, olderthandirt. If you disagree with my logic, feel welcome to state your case.



[Edited 1/31/2015 11:34:39 AM ]

1/31/2015 12:00:28 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

olderthandirt20
Over 4,000 Posts! (5,853)
Waldron, AR
71, joined Jul. 2014


I think you have called it right while I am highly certain gods do not exist( 98% probabilities )I am open to verifiable evidence to the contrary.
The closest I could come to a god would be nature ( not an entity but certainly a creator & lawgiver ) .
Science is only our limited knowledge of nature's laws.

1/31/2015 12:10:43 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 
clarencec
Over 2,000 Posts (3,667)
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
60, joined Oct. 2008


.
Quote from turkalurk82:
I just wanted to give this it's own thread. The phrase claimed as "word salad," was "Potentiality being actualized" in the context of a monistic concept of a Supreme Being.

Explain what "potentiality being actualized" in the context of a Monistic concept of a Supreme Being means. To me it sounds philosophical and conceptual. I don't doubt that God/s may exist as philosophical concepts, but can they be fleshed out into scientific concepts that can be subjected to testing? What is a God made of? What is the arrangement of its internal organs? How did it originate? Are you positing, like the Abrahamic religions do, that it has human like mental faculties without the need for a brain that in our case resulted from a process of cosmological and biological evolution that took billions of years?



[Edited 1/31/2015 12:11:16 PM ]

1/31/2015 12:13:20 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

rufftreasure
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (19,220)
Fairmont, MN
62, joined Jun. 2014


Quote from olderthandirt20:
I think you have called it right while I am highly certain gods do not exist( 98% probabilities )I am open to verifiable evidence to the contrary.
The closest I could come to a god would be nature ( not an entity but certainly a creator & lawgiver ) .
Science is only our limited knowledge of nature's laws.


I always like the way you think

1/31/2015 12:16:07 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

rufftreasure
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (19,220)
Fairmont, MN
62, joined Jun. 2014


Quote from clarencec:
.
Quote from turkalurk82:
I just wanted to give this it's own thread. The phrase claimed as "word salad," was "Potentiality being actualized" in the context of a monistic concept of a Supreme Being.

Explain what "potentiality being actualized" in the context of a Monistic concept of a Supreme Being means. To me it sounds philosophical and conceptual. I don't doubt that God/s may exist as philosophical concepts, but can they be fleshed out into scientific concepts that can be subjected to testing? What is a God made of? What is the arrangement of its internal organs? How did it originate? Are you positing, like the Abrahamic religions do, that it has human like mental faculties without the need for a brain that in our case resulted from a process of cosmological and biological evolution that took billions of years?


You pose a good question, and I like the way you think too

1/31/2015 7:52:35 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from olderthandirt20:
I think you have called it right while I am highly certain gods do not exist( 98% probabilities )I am open to verifiable evidence to the contrary.
The closest I could come to a god would be nature ( not an entity but certainly a creator & lawgiver ) .
Science is only our limited knowledge of nature's laws.


yes, and this is what the "en" in panendeism represents, that god is more than our conceptualization of Existence(nature), however we can only experience this world subjectively through our sense. We can only use logic and reasonability of philosophy to speculate about the unknown, and hypothesize which theories have the most logical credibility. Pantheism simply is a god of nature. I use deism as a suffix to represent my reliance on reason and rationality opposed to theism which relies on scripture. The "en" part represents how actuality transcends our understanding of our subjective physical observable universe to include every potential possibility that can be actuated through random mechanisms. I believe ita likely that although our observable physical universe has seems to have a beginning and an end, that it pulsates from inflation to deflation until maximums are reached and the polarity of the gravitational force of dark energy reverses polarity upon reaching a critical maximum. This is cosmic bounce theory. I also believe its possible this universe could collapse within itself forming its own pocket of seperate universes. This is the fractaled multiverse theory. Therefore, it is possible this world popped into existence from a eternal cosmic vaccuum. All potentiality is derived from the properties of this eternal source of Existence. The natural laws is our conceptual understanding of how nature rearranges itself in every possible way that it can exist. In an actual infinite existence, everything that is at all possible to exist, wull eventually exist. We experience these actualizing possibilities through our subjective perspective as an experience of time. Through our experience within time, we experience potentiality(a possibility) being(flowing through time) actualized(made real) In other words, future, present, and past. Outside of time, these actualization of potentialities exist as possibly the only "Actual infinite." We can conceptualize and imagine what this concept of objective reality entails. this is where science and philosophy come into play. Science is for understanding nature that can be tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Philosphy applies logic to determine the probability of all the hypotheticals that are not currently testable/observable.

Everything I believe can be believed by an atheist. The only difference is that I revere Existence as a Supreme Being. I revere Life as superior being. I went to the zoo with some friends today, and it feels so spiritual to experience that sensation of connectedness to my fellow species of Life. But, at the same time, this connection I feel with them, inflicts sadness because I begin to empathize with their captivity. I begin to imagine an alien civilazation capturing us and pinning us up in different poses like insects to be studied. So, this is what motivates me to do the right thing. However, too much empathy can be impractical and self-defeating. This is where empathy should be a guide to be applied within reason.

As you can see, my philosphy can be a healthy compromise between the two warring alternatives. What is important is the pursuit of truth with the guide of reason and the use of empathy to gain impartiality. How you choose to label(name) your beliefs is unimportant, how you conceptualize your reality is also unimportant. what is important, is how these beliefs influence you to behave like a good virtuous person ought to behave. Call it what you will, but the world we live in is ours to share. We must learn to cooperate if we are to coexist.

clarence, it seems you have read very little of the vast information I have posted about my beliefs. I am astounded. Do you think I am lying when I have said countless times, that I do not believe god is a person with a mind. If an alien intelligent being does exist, this being may be superior, but would not be supreme. I can only use logic to reason that the mysterious supreme being exists as a totality, and hypothesize about any inferior beings that possibly exist as a beings greater than our own. Also, please google emergentism. I believe emergent properties do not exist indepent from the system in which they emerged. without the brain, there is no mind. In fact, without homeostasis of this system, the system often malfuntions and the emerging properties will change characteristics in correspondence to these flucuations in the homeostasis of the system.



[Edited 1/31/2015 7:54:15 PM ]

1/31/2015 8:13:27 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

furchizedek
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (17,868)
Kingman, AZ
75, joined Sep. 2010


Quote from clarencec:
.
Quote from turkalurk82:
I just wanted to give this it's own thread. The phrase claimed as "word salad," was "Potentiality being actualized" in the context of a monistic concept of a Supreme Being.

Explain what "potentiality being actualized" in the context of a Monistic concept of a Supreme Being means. To me it sounds philosophical and conceptual. I don't doubt that God/s may exist as philosophical concepts, but can they be fleshed out into scientific concepts that can be subjected to testing?


Maybe not. Maybe not subject to testing by our limited abilities.

What is a God made of?


Spirit stuff, probably. Until we get instruments that can test for spirit stuff, or we go there for a first hand look (to Spirit Land), we're probably going to be out of luck.

What is the arrangement of its internal organs?


God is probably pure mind made of spirit stuff beyond our ken. It's going to be difficult for a finite being to understand an infinite being.

How did it originate?


That's probably an unanswerable question, along with many such that have to do with God, the Universe, Infinity, and Eternity. Can a person be satisfied that there are unanswerable questions?

Does anyone know if they make ultraviolet glasses or viewers? I want to see if I can spot any secondary midwayers. I't pretty sure they should be visible in the ultraviolet.



[Edited 1/31/2015 8:15:36 PM ]

2/11/2015 4:04:04 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


So, I guess we can all agree that strong/militant atheism can easily be defeated?

If any future readers have a counter argument please message me. My interest in these forums is fading, but will try to keep up with any messages in the future.

2/11/2015 6:36:40 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 
clarencec
Over 2,000 Posts (3,667)
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
60, joined Oct. 2008


Strong atheism is the proposal that theism is false. Theism is the proposal that God/s exist. I found your noodling with meaning of the God concept vague and convoluted to the extent that there didn't appear to be anything worth refuting. I hope you get lots of personal messages from folks who think otherwise though.

2/11/2015 7:21:20 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from clarencec:
Strong atheism is the proposal that theism is false. Theism is the proposal that God/s exist. I found your noodling with meaning of the God concept vague and convoluted to the extent that there didn't appear to be anything worth refuting. I hope you get lots of personal messages from folks who think otherwise though.


yes notice its not just a rejection of monotheism. Is vedanta school of hinduism not a popular enough religion to be taken seriously? Is taoism? Buddhism? you are so full of it, its ridiculous!
how is your criticism not an argument from incredulity? lacking imagination is not a refutation if anything. you're are such a phony clarence. whats the point of all this debating if you fail at presenting any valid arguments? Oh, thats why you don't engage me. You have no logical arguments so you must support your claims with obviously fallacious arguments. hahaha, a valid criticism of your beliefs is not worth refuting, but how much time have you invested refuting the "worthy" arguments of iyam and sail? What a sad joke, clarence. You are just a more polite version of those 2 knuckleheads.

btw, look up the appeal to the masses fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. I don't see many on your bandwagon anyway, but thats not a valid refutation of anything. You write so well, but seem ignorant about the rules of valid inference. If you want to debate, then why wouldn't you educate yourself on logical fallacies? all show and no substance? you only want to make yourself look good for arguing the obvious common sense stuff? Because, your not making yourself look good claiming to be logical, yet spewing out nothing but common fallacies with no desire to defend or support them. Oh well, thanks for showing me just how unworthy you are. I engaged you because of a post a read that said you were tired of arguing the same old stuff. Here I offered you something different and logical, but it was unworthy of your time. I think you are afraid because of possible skeletons in your closet. Why else would you be sticking your fingers in your ears? Afraid of accountability? Doesn't matter anyway. I am starting to remember why I stopped debating with stubborn illogical people so long ago. My time is better spent on more beneficial endeavors. have fun fallaciously arguing your life away senselessly so that you can criticize others without applying any scrutinity to your own beliefs.

2/11/2015 7:46:21 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 
clarencec
Over 2,000 Posts (3,667)
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
60, joined Oct. 2008


I'm unmoved by the personal remarks. Ideally, members should address topics and not personalities. If we're talking about refuting the existence of God/s, then, as in this 1948 debate between Bertrand Russell and Reverend Frederick Copleston, some agreement should be reached on what the term means.

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.
http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm

I prefer simply outlined conceptions of God/s without convoluted language. Any God/s worth their salt who desired to be believed in by their created beings would keep their self-definitions simple.



[Edited 2/11/2015 7:47:33 PM ]

2/11/2015 7:49:38 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


be unmoved by personal remarks, clarence, as i am, but they'll keep on a comin'.

2/11/2015 11:52:47 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from clarencec:
I'm unmoved by the personal remarks. Ideally, members should address topics and not personalities. If we're talking about refuting the existence of God/s, then, as in this 1948 debate between Bertrand Russell and Reverend Frederick Copleston, some agreement should be reached on what the term means.

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.
http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm

I prefer simply outlined conceptions of God/s without convoluted language. Any God/s worth their salt who desired to be believed in by their created beings would keep their self-definitions simple.


You are unmoved by personal remarks and logical arguments' however, you respond to personal remarks with haste an often ignore logical criticisms altogether. At this point, I no longer care what moves you. Your logic is severely flawed considering you refuse to acknowledge that my God concept is not monotheistic. Yet, you continue to counter the monotheistic definition of God. Strong atheists deny the existence of any theism, concept not just monotheism. In other words, your refusal to acknowledge any of the other common forms of theism presents a false dilemma. Also, refusing to acknowledge my panendeistic position an continuing to argue the monotheistic position as if you are defeating my position is known as the straw man fallacy.

I think that seems to be what prevents your ability to make the connection, a lack of passion. You aren't moved enough to give it the required effort it takes to experience anything spiritual or transcendent it is of little value unless it is easily scrutinized. What exactly does move you?

2/12/2015 12:00:50 AMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Quote from jrbogie1949:
be unmoved by personal remarks, clarence, as i am, but they'll keep on a comin'.
look at you bro, always trying to post snide remarks like a lil hater. If you were unmoved you wouldn't be saying anything.

2/12/2015 4:03:05 AMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 
clarencec
Over 2,000 Posts (3,667)
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
60, joined Oct. 2008


.
Quote from turkalurk82:
You are unmoved by personal remarks and logical arguments' however, you respond to personal remarks with haste an often ignore logical criticisms altogether.

Not really. I ignore lots of personal remarks until they become irksome. Your posts are full of the personal stuff, whether directed at bogie or the generic "atheists are this, atheists are that". It's all bollocks in my opinion. I tend to think people of every belief and non-belief designation comprise a full range of personality types, and making posts on a religion forum about personalities is utterly beside the point.

Quote from turkalurk82:
At this point, I no longer care what moves you. Your logic is severely flawed considering you refuse to acknowledge that my God concept is not monotheistic.

It does sound kind of monotheistic by what I'm reading on a site about panendeism. It's a sub-category of Deism. Deism is the one where God created the world but doesn't have much to do with it. Panendeism has the universe as part of God but not the whole thing. He's believed to extend beyond the universe. It sounds hypothetical.

Quote from turkalurk82:
Yet, you continue to counter the monotheistic definition of God. Strong atheists deny the existence of any theism, concept not just monotheism. In other words, your refusal to acknowledge any of the other common forms of theism presents a false dilemma. Also, refusing to acknowledge my panendeistic position an continuing to argue the monotheistic position as if you are defeating my position is known as the straw man fallacy.

I'd probably identify as a weak atheist due to laziness. I don't research all possible God concepts on a daily basis with a view to refuting them all before teatime. Such an activity seems unrewarding. And I'm okay with someone having a specialized hypothetical concept of a god that isn't planning to fry unbelievers in a fiery hell for eternity. It seems harmless.

Quote from turkalurk82:
I think that seems to be what prevents your ability to make the connection, a lack of passion. You aren't moved enough to give it the required effort it takes to experience anything spiritual or transcendent it is of little value unless it is easily scrutinized. What exactly does move you?

Yes, I don't think I'm wired up to experience anything spiritual or transcendent. I see everything as grounded in the physical, but nonetheless marvellous. The universe and all the things in it are marvellous, particularly biological organisms and reasoning minds.

About Panendeism. There's more stuff if you follow the link:

Deism Defined
Deism is a category of belief in god (Spirit, Deity, ground of being, Dao, etc...) based on reason, experience, and the observation of nature.

Deism vs. Atheism
    Deism differs from Atheism in that Atheism is a Rational based category of belief that asserts that God doesn't exist (Strong Atheism) or simply a lack of belief in any god, gods, or any higher power, etc... (Weak Atheism). Deism is a Rational based category of belief in god.

Deism vs. Theism
    Deism differs from Theism in that Theism is a traditional and scriptural based category of belief in God, where Deism is a rational based category of belief in god.

Panendeism Defined

    Panendeism is a sub-category of Deism. It is based on the speculation that the universe is a part of god, but not all of god and literally means "all in god". Some panendeists have established numerous additional beliefs, some of which are quite detailed, and use more specialized terminology to describe their beliefs. However, any deist who believes that the universe is a part (but not the whole) of god, can be considered a panendeist.

"First there was the eternal Tao; From One came two ... "

~Lao Tzu
http://panendeism.webs.com/

2/12/2015 8:47:00 AMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from turkalurk82:
look at you bro, always trying to post snide remarks like a lil hater. If you were unmoved you wouldn't be saying anything.


unmoved as far as cogent to the topic. still highly amusing and entertaining, though, which after all is why i'm here.



[Edited 2/12/2015 8:47:55 AM ]

2/12/2015 6:00:31 PMArguments against Strong/Militant Atheism. 

turkalurk82
Over 1,000 Posts (1,071)
Godfrey, IL
35, joined Sep. 2014


Any personal remarks are relevant to the conversation and stated as personal opinion or in the form of a question. I think a persons belief reflects a person's personality. It seems more often that the farther you go on either side of the spectrum, the more narcissitic, cynical, and irrational they are. The reason why it is a logical fallacy to believe that all god concepts are false, is because it is a statment based on ignorance no matter how you look at it. Weak atheism doesn't make as bold of a claim. It means they have no reason to believe, but don't equate their lack of belief with a belief that the opposite is true. My remarks to strong atheists are not also remarks to weak atheists. I consider a weak atheist very congruent to my agnostic approach.

the word "universe" is used today to describe the observable universe. if you were more read up on your physics you would realize there is an infinite amount of Existence thay we can not observe. The universe is expanding so by the time the light from the outter reaches of the universe travels to us, its just an observation of the past.

There could also be a multiverse in which this is only one of an infinite amount individual universe. the tao is decribed as nothingness. like an empty container. Our best theory for the creation of matter is through the energy flucuations in a cosmic vaccuum.

The tao that can be named(physical observable universe) is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable(Objective Reality) is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.


So, as you can see its not just hypothetical, its simple logic that there is more to the known universe. Existence is more than the universe. Objective Reality implies more reality than any subjective reality. Existence=Objective Reality=God, therefore god, existence,and objective reality transcend the observable universe. if you want to define the universe philisophically as a totality if existence, then based on that definition I am a pandeist. Pandeism is a subcategory of deism because it is more specific. This is not to be confused with classical deism.

Panendeism
Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God. A component of panendeism is "experiential metaphysics" – the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of panendeism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion.[69] This is a major departure from classical deism.

A 1995 news article includes an early usage of the term by Jim Garvin, a Vietnam veteran who became a Trappist monk in the Holy Cross Abbey of Berryville, Virginia, and went on to lead the economic development of Phoenix, Arizona. Despite his Roman Catholic post, Garvin described his spiritual position as "pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all-pervading Great Spirit..."[70]


I could also be labeled as a monist, but I would use that label in a strictly philosophical context. The panendeist label is only relevant in the context of religion. I could losely be called a panentheist, because I now know of religious scriptures that are congruent with my beliefs. Obviously, the tao te ching for instance. The rig veda creation hymm is one if my favorite creation stories. There are many god concepts that are congruent with my own that people have been revering for thousands if years.

Btw, I believe an atheist can experienced transcendence by revering my god while labeling it Nature. If you feel overwhelmed at the awe you feel for the universe, that oceanic feeling of interconnectedness and oneness with Nature, is the same thing as spiritual emotion, just based on different labeling methods. When a person reveres the unfathomable complexity of reality, they are revering my god. When a person uses empathy to place a higher value than on something other then themselves. They are putting faith into something greater than themselves, whether they associate any spiritual emotion to it or not. If there is no greater being than our own, why would play fair if you can get away with cheating? Believing there is no being superior to your own, implies egoism. You are right though, the best criticism of my god, is that it is a benign concept. It doesn't have all the flash of mysticism. When we die, we are dead. We continue to exist indirectly through many way tyat can be hypothesized, but I don't believe my individual consciousness will be conscious somewhere else. One thing I can say is that eventually our physical essense wilk decay and be reabsorbed into the Biosphere(a living god=totality of Life). In a sense, when we die we truly become one with the World. Other than that, I haven't a clue what happens to us when we die. I imagine its much like conceptualizing an experience prior to birth. I don't fear that state of Being.

Absorb what you can from my thoughts or leave it all. I don't care, anymore. My time is better spent elsewhere.