Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[Myles]

read it and weep

You
Please provide a reference for Plato's challenge to pantheism. In the opening of the " Republic " he explains how he has been down to Piraeus with Glaucon ,to worship the goddess. The goddess was Bendis, a Thracian goddess who had recently been introduced to Athens. In function and form she was similar to Artemis.So he had two for the price of one, so to speak.

Me
Plato initiated the first wave of rejection of the theogeny - he did this by philosophizing on the nature of the "chos" ("void") which is attributed as the cause of the greek pantheon.

A few radical philosophers like Xenophanes of Colophon were already beginning to label the poets' tales as blasphemous lies in the 6th century BC; Xenophanes had complained that Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods "all that is shameful and disgraceful among men; they steal, commit adultery, and deceive one another".[67] This line of thought found its most sweeping expression in Plato's Republic and Laws. Plato created his own allegorical myths (such as the vision of Er in the Republic), attacked the traditional tales of the gods' tricks, thefts and adulteries as immoral, and objected to their central role in literature.[6] Plato's criticism (he called the myths "old wives' chatter")[68] was the first serious challenge to the Homeric mythological tradition.[65]

:bawl::shrug:

You really are out of your depth. As I pointed out, Plato was a pantheist and nothing that you have quoted negates that.

You are just picking up bit and pieces without an understanding of the context. As I have already told you, Plato was attacking the myths surrounding the gods, not denying the gods themselves. If you cannot work that out from the passages quoted then I can only assume it's because you cannot find the noumenon. I also referred you to " The Laws" where you will find abundant evidence of Plato's pantheism, but you are too busy making fatuous statements to waste your time educating yourself. Much easier to repeat a passage which you offered before, even though it was refuted first time round.

 

[Photizo]

Can I take it that you do not drive a crafted/concocted car , use a phone, electricity, gas, and so on ? But it's different when it comes to using a PC. That cannot be said to be crafted or concocted; it's a gift from the high and mighty one, so that his eternal verities may be made known to the heathen.

I will take it that you are purposely throwing up a smokescreen in a weak attempt to avoid exposure...The merits of science and those doing it are not the issue...my reply was addressing your lie concerning the existence of God.

 

[Myles]

I will take it that you are purposely throwing up a smokescreen in a weak attempt to avoid exposure...The merits of science and those doing it are not the issue...my reply was addressing your lie concerning the existence of God.

You are absolutely right. Be sure your sins will find you out. And found me out they have, I think. I'm not so sure about the lie. No doubt there is something in scripture that tells us a doubt or a denial is a lie.

Verily I say unto ye, he that doubteth shall be called a liar and shall not see the face of God.

 

[Cris]

Photizo,

The Existence of God is common knowledge present within all human beings.

And your proof is?

This knowledge has been placed within them by God Himself and, therefore, is attainable/accessible by anyone who cares to 'go there'..

And when one looks and doesn’t find anything, then what? Since this is not independently verifiable and is personal to each individual, how do you ascertain whether this is true or is really simply a delusion on your part? Bear in mind the two possibilities (1) that there is an incredibly all-powerful super-being capable of creating an entire universe and has created a vast supernatural realm and has enabled infinite entities to persist beyond death, all of which has absolutely zero factual support, or (2) you are simply deluded.

I hope you see the fundamental problem here – your claims simply have no credibility.

The denial of God is denial of oneself, with its roots in self (God) hatred.

This is religious propaganda and is reprehensible in an intelligent debate.

 

[Photizo]

Photizo,

And your proof is?

And when one looks and doesn’t find anything, then what? Since this is not independently verifiable and is personal to each individual, how do you ascertain whether this is true or is really simply a delusion on your part? Bear in mind the two possibilities (1) that there is an incredibly all-powerful super-being capable of creating an entire universe and has created a vast supernatural realm and has enabled infinite entities to persist beyond death, all of which has absolutely zero factual support, or (2) you are simply deluded.

I hope you see the fundamental problem here – your claims simply have no credibility.

This is religious propaganda and is reprehensible in an intelligent debate.

The fundamental problem is your inability to adapt...insisting on using the wrong tool for the job at hand...What happens to those species who cannot adapt themselves to a changing environment--let alone recognise one? (in this case the Spiritual versus the Physical)

The Spiritual realm is pervaded byTruth...certainly a hostile environment for one unaccustomed to its 'atmosphere'.

Refusal/Failure to adapt leads to bewilderment and confusion, then hallucinations, followed by death shortly thereafter, all ultimately leading to extinction of the species.

 

[SnakeLord]

you say are qualified
how did you assess this?

You tell me. You're the qualified one apparently..

the problem is not so much your knowledge - obviously you are quite intelligent and educated

While that's sweet it's of no relevance. I asked you which scripture you refer to.

so because justice is a "mental concept" does that make it real or not?

Real in what sense? It exists as an idea, a concept. It is not an existing object. Again unless you espouse that god is the same, using this as a comparison is worthless.

So is justice real or non-existent?

Non existent... as an object. Existent as an idea.

If I tell you there is a president and you demand "show me" I cannot fulfill your request - not because the president cannot be seen, but because he doesn't concede to your or my will.

Trying to make a comparison with the president, (someone that can be approached by empiricism), is like comparing pigs with jumbo jets. The evidence to suggest that the president exists is so overwhelming that only a fool would concede otherwise. With god there is squat. Oh wait, a dusty old manuscript written by ancient people which is as far as reality is concerned about as valuable as the epic of Gilgamesh or Beowulf.

---

Photzio: Would you like to write an article for my website? I think you're the perfect candidate to show the idiocy of religion for what it truly is.

 

[Myles]

The fundamental problem is your inability to adapt...insisting on using the wrong tool for the job at hand...What happens to those species who cannot adapt themselves to a changing environment--let alone recognise one? (in this case the Spiritual versus the Physical)

The Spiritual realm is pervaded byTruth...certainly a hostile environment for one unaccustomed to its 'atmosphere'.

Refusal/Failure to adapt leads to bewilderment and confusion, then hallucinations, followed by death shortly thereafter, all ultimately leading to extinction of the species.

Well I.m glad to see you're an evolutionist. Stick with it and you may come to realize the error of your ways.

 

[Myles]

Photizo,

And your proof is?

And when one looks and doesn’t find anything, then what? Since this is not independently verifiable and is personal to each individual, how do you ascertain whether this is true or is really simply a delusion on your part? Bear in mind the two possibilities (1) that there is an incredibly all-powerful super-being capable of creating an entire universe and has created a vast supernatural realm and has enabled infinite entities to persist beyond death, all of which has absolutely zero factual support, or (2) you are simply deluded.

I hope you see the fundamental problem here – your claims simply have no credibility.

This is religious propaganda and is reprehensible in an intelligent debate.

Were you truly expecting an intelligent debate ? How would a deluded person recognize that he was deluded ?

 

[Frud11]

Functionality implies that someone USES -- actively -- the 'tool'. It's called a brain.

How about: "A wise man understands that he knows only a little, and must use it wisely, therefore" (old Latin saying).

(Hey, don't shoot me, I just play the piano here)

 

[Myles]

Functionality implies that someone USES -- actively -- the 'tool'. It's called a brain.

How about: "A wise man understands that he knows only a little, and must use it wisely, therefore" (old Latin saying).

(Hey, don't shoot me, I just play the piano here)

I hope you play hymns and none of the devil's music.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

you say are qualified
how did you assess this?
”
You tell me. You're the qualified one apparently..

gets back to normative descriptions I'm afraid ...

“
the problem is not so much your knowledge - obviously you are quite intelligent and educated
”
While that's sweet it's of no relevance. I asked you which scripture you refer to.

given your attitude, it doesn't really matter

“
so because justice is a "mental concept" does that make it real or not?
”
Real in what sense? It exists as an idea, a concept. It is not an existing object. Again unless you espouse that god is the same, using this as a comparison is worthless.

“
So is justice real or non-existent?
”
Non existent... as an object. Existent as an idea.

So are mental concepts (like justice for example) real or not?

“
If I tell you there is a president and you demand "show me" I cannot fulfill your request - not because the president cannot be seen, but because he doesn't concede to your or my will.
”
Trying to make a comparison with the president, (someone that can be approached by empiricism)

as already indicated, its not a classical empirical claim, since there is no amount of training you can do to make the president appear before your senses (you can however appeal to him through a common interest)

 

[Myles]

Refusal/Failure to adapt leads to bewilderment and confusion, then hallucinations, followed by death shortly thereafter, all ultimately leading to extinction of the species.

And that's from The Good News Bible. Wait till you read the other stuff.

 

[Frud11]

I hope you play hymns and none of the devil's music.

You mean that guy in the dark suit that keeps hanging around? I keep telling him I'm not interested, but he just doesn't seem to listen (he lets me practise, though).

 

[Myles]

You mean that guy in the dark suit that keeps hanging around? I keep telling him I'm not interested, but he just doesn't seem to listen (he lets me practise, though).

Hide a few pages of scripture behind your music and that should do the trick.