"Atheist proves god does exist"

[wynn]

You mention prashadam. Why?

Because atheists are people too.

Surely these discussions would be quite different if people would actually be on such cordial terms to share and accept edible foods, would they not?

We tend to act as if here at the forums, these are all just formal, philosophical discussions, as if it weren't real people, with warm blood and palpitating hearts that participate in them.

Neglecting our humaneness tends to impair intelligence.
Results abound.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Surely these discussions would be quite different if people would actually be on such cordial terms to share and accept edible foods, would they not?

Can you explain this further?

We tend to act as if here at the forums, these are all just formal, philosophical discussions, as if it weren't real people, with warm blood and palpitating hearts that participate in them.

What is the underlying point you're trying to make?

I'm not the kind of person who is going to simply accept a smack in the face,
and I'm sure Dyw.., spider, or Enmos, isn't either.
Maybe in the grand scheme of things that's not a perfect attitude, but it is where we're at, at this moment in time.

If you followed the dialogue between myself and UD, you will notice that behind the sparks there is, or can be a reconciliation of ideas. An agreement to agree to disagree.

Neglecting our humaneness tends to impair intelligence.
Results abound.

So does allowing yourself to be trampeled on.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Surely these discussions would be quite different if people would actually be on such cordial terms to share and accept edible foods, would they not?

Can you explain this further?

What is the underlying point you're trying to make?

Generally, people who are on cordial terms do not engage in discussion on some topics that would be controversial or conducive to hostility or humiliation of one of the persons involved.
If one is on cordial terms with someone, such as in sharing a meal, one will not, for example, question that person's political or religious beliefs.

Conversely, an argumentative approach to discussion is not conducive to the development of cordial relationships.

Moreover, when people endure communications that are on less than cordial terms, this can easily give rise to lines of reasoning and action that are vexing, philosophically difficult to settle.
I do think that many apparently unsolvable problems (also in the theist/atheist discussion/debate) that by now have a long history and are established as relevant actually arose out of such enduring of less-than-cordial communication.

The theist/atheist discussion/debate strikes me as those relationships where the people involved keep fighting and keep trying to make up, trying to resolve all their current conflicts, but it never works and the relationship continues to be straining - because the crucial conflict is not getting resolved, namely, that they don't want to be together to begin with.

I'm not the kind of person who is going to simply accept a smack in the face,
and I'm sure Dyw.., spider, or Enmos, isn't either.
Maybe in the grand scheme of things that's not a perfect attitude, but it is where we're at, at this moment in time.

If you followed the dialogue between myself and UD, you will notice that behind the sparks there is, or can be a reconciliation of ideas. An agreement to agree to disagree.

Neglecting our humaneness tends to impair intelligence.
Results abound.

So does allowing yourself to be trampeled on.

I am surprised that you, as a theist, would say that. I have never viewed your input at the forums as a matter of not letting yourself be trampled on.
I have always presumed that you, as a theist, hold the higher ground, and that when you do get argumentative, this is for didactic purposes for the other person, and not to defend yourself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not the kind of person who is going to simply accept a smack in the face,
and I'm sure Dyw.., spider, or Enmos, isn't either.

Not quite true. Sometimes a "smack in the face" is exactly what I'm looking for. Something that stops me dead in my tracks and forces a re-think.

So does allowing yourself to be trampeled on.

Also not quite true.
"Being trampled on" is subjective. When someone thinks they are are doing so it may be that I view as letting them run out of steam until I can get at the meat of their argument.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Not quite true. Sometimes a "smack in the face" is exactly what I'm looking for. Something that stops me dead in my tracks and forces a re-think.

Yes, I can see that.

Also not quite true.
"Being trampled on" is subjective. When someone thinks they are are doing so it may be that I view as letting them run out of steam until I can get at the meat of their argument.

Really?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Really?

Absolutely.
I'm not unduly bothered about "being trampled on" during a discussion (or argument) if I'm gaining (or expecting to gain) something from it.
I'm primarily interested in ideas not my feelings.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Generally, people who are on cordial terms do not engage in discussion on some topics that would be controversial or conducive to hostility or humiliation of one of the persons involved.

People disagree, Signal.

If one is on cordial terms with someone, such as in sharing a meal, one will not, for example, question that person's political or religious beliefs.

That's all well and good, but we're not sharing a meal, and this is a forum which does question religious or political beliefs.

Conversely, an argumentative approach to discussion is not conducive to the development of cordial relationships.

So what?
Atheists aren't interested in cordial relationships with theists.
They want to wipe theism out?
They don't care whether it's true or not.

Moreover, when people endure communications that are on less than cordial terms, this can easily give rise to lines of reasoning and action that are vexing, philosophically difficult to settle.

What do you think they are interested in?

I do think that many apparently unsolvable problems (also in the theist/atheist discussion/debate) that by now have a long history and are established as relevant actually arose out of such enduring of less-than-cordial communication.

There are no ''unsolvable problems in the debate.
They want to wipe out theism, period.
Try and understand that.
Everything is designed to do just that.

The theist/atheist discussion/debate strikes me as those relationships where the people involved keep fighting and keep trying to make up, trying to resolve all their current conflicts, but it never works and the relationship continues to be straining - because the crucial conflict is not getting resolved, namely, that they don't want to be together to begin with.

Spidergoat believes his worldview has the monopoly on what is regarded as evidence.
What does that mean to you?

I am surprised that you, as a theist, would say that. I have never viewed your input at the forums as a matter of not letting yourself be trampled on.
I have always presumed that you, as a theist, hold the higher ground, and that when you do get argumentative, this is for didactic purposes for the other person, and not to defend yourself.

Why do you think I was refering to myself?

jan.

 

[Enmos]

So what?
Atheists aren't interested in cordial relationships with theists.
They want to wipe theism out?
They don't care whether it's true or not.

I have friends that are theists. In fact, I have gone to Christian schools from kindergarden to college. Also, I went to church as a kid.

They want to wipe out theism, period.
Try and understand that.
Everything is designed to do just that.

Paraniod much?
With all the proselytising going on I'd sooner say it's the other way around.


Anyway, it's now clear why there is no point in discussing things with you.

 

[spidergoat]

So what?
Atheists aren't interested in cordial relationships with theists.
They want to wipe theism out?
They don't care whether it's true or not.

That's nonsense, many of my friends are theists and some are Christians! I do care whether it's true, and I'm open to evidence.

But you don't get to say that an anecdotal report constitutes evidence, or else reports of alien abductions are evidence of extraterrestrial visits to Earth.

 

[wynn]

Generally, people who are on cordial terms do not engage in discussion on some topics that would be controversial or conducive to hostility or humiliation of one of the persons involved.

People disagree, Signal.

There is only so much disagreement that a cordial relationship can bear before it breaks.

That's all well and good, but we're not sharing a meal, and this is a forum which does question religious or political beliefs.

Oh. It's a forum and therefore we can fight like barbarians and accept barbaric treatment! :bugeye:

Of course, I myself take part in such fights, a long stint in Western academia has thoroughly trained me to tolerate discussion on personal topics with people who don't care whether I live or die, and for whom I don't care whether they live or die.
But frankly, I am beginning to have enough of that.

So what?
Atheists aren't interested in cordial relationships with theists.
They want to wipe theism out?
They don't care whether it's true or not.

I'm not so sure about that.
Demonizing atheists surely doesn't help advance things between theists and atheists.

I think that a false theist is a million times worse than the worst self-declared atheist.
For me, this puts the whole theist/atheist discussion in a different perspective than just the old "us vs. them".

What do you think they are interested in?

Isn't everyone interested in winning and controlling?

I do think that many apparently unsolvable problems (also in the theist/atheist discussion/debate) that by now have a long history and are established as relevant actually arose out of such enduring of less-than-cordial communication.

There are no ''unsolvable problems in the debate.

Solipsism is such an unsolvable problem.

Spidergoat believes his worldview has the monopoly on what is regarded as evidence.

Who, in debate, doesn't put forward the outlook that their worldview has monopoly?

What does that mean to you?

That he is like pretty much everyone else.

Why do you think I was refering to myself?

Because in that same post, you said -
"I'm not the kind of person who is going to simply accept a smack in the face"

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

There is only so much disagreement that a cordial relationship can bear before it breaks.

And it can be rebuilt again.

Oh. It's a forum and therefore we can fight like barbarians and accept barbaric treatment! :bugeye:

There's no barbarianism, it's just a disagreement. Namely the claim that consciousness is a symtom of material nature, and not being able to
substantiate it. They're just evading the near impossible task of providing
an adequate explanation, by any means necessary. I'm just cutting through
the bullshit, keeping the way clear.

Of course, I myself take part in such fights, a long stint in Western academia has thoroughly trained me to tolerate discussion on personal topics with people who don't care whether I live or die, and for whom I don't care whether they live or die.
But frankly, I am beginning to have enough of that.

That's entirely your choice.

I'm not so sure about that.
Demonizing atheists surely doesn't help advance things between theists and atheists.

I'm not demonizing atheists, they do want to be rid of theism.
Of course there are as many definition of 'atheist' as there are atheists,
but I am pertaining to a particular type, the type that want to be rid of theism.
As spider says, they have he monopoly on what is to be classed as evidence.

I think that a false theist is a million times worse than the worst self-declared atheist.

In reality, what is a false theist?

For me, this puts the whole theist/atheist discussion in a different perspective than just the old "us vs. them".

The competition is a symtom of society, not of atheism and theism.

Isn't everyone interested in winning and controlling?

That doesn't answer the question.

Solipsism is such an unsolvable problem.

I'm not arguing from that point of view. I can understand that others
exist, but it is MY perception.
That understanding and awareness, I call
consciousness.

Who, in debate, doesn't put forward the outlook that their worldview has monopoly?

Nobody I know.
In a debate you put foreward your argument to the affirmative.
To go one step further and claim you HAVE the monopoly is not debate, and can never be.
From spiders perspective 'consciousness' IS a product of material nature.
And it doesn't matter that he cannot expain why.
Because he has the monopoly.

God is now a scientific endevour.
Shifting perception or what?

That he is like pretty much everyone else.

I think you can do better than that.

Because in that same post, you said -
"I'm not the kind of person who is going to simply accept a smack in the face"

Bullying is one of the tacticts used by some atheists (and theists), in a bid to intimidate.
I have found that some are quite happy to think they have been victorious
in debate, because they have intimidated their oponent, creating an atmosphere where they (opponent) can be made to feel like an idiot.


All I'm interested in is; what is your explanation?
Why do you believe what you believe?
Why is consciousness a product of nature?

It's real simple.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Namely the claim that consciousness is a symtom of material nature, and not being able to substantiate it. They're just evading the near impossible task of providing an adequate explanation, by any means necessary. I'm just cutting through the bullshit, keeping the way clear.

Still being deceitful.
You have already been told, more than once, that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the opposite position. It's an inference. Again.

 

[spidergoat]

Consciousness is what the brain does (when the brain is damaged consciousness is lost or altered), and the brain is matter. That is the default position. We can observe the electrical signals moving around. If you are thinking the brain is like the eye, and consciousness is like light which the brain just perceives, it is your responsibility to find, like light, the medium of consciousness.

 

[universaldistress]

The agreement to disagree becomes default when all that is (il)logically left is belief. I would say that a respect of people's beliefs is essential in a peaceful world. But an atheist's challenge must be one of exposing a believer's belief for what it truly is: a belief (unproven).

If you are a person who is happy to believe then fair play, but never discount a thinker's right to question validity of any 'way'.

The experience I had of seeing the whole universe through god's eyes was an illness-mushroom combo, and despite its overly-real type lucidity, I still class it as a projection of my own mind. I would find it impossible to interpret any such singular experience I would see through my own eyes as being absolutely real. Evidence of god's existence has to be recorded and verified by a respected group of people, people I might add, who have no pre-bias.

We must never give up the 'good work' (either side), keeps life interesting.

 

[quinnsong]

The agreement to disagree becomes default when all that is (il)logically left is belief. I would say that a respect of people's beliefs is essential in a peaceful world. But an atheists challenge must be one of exposing a believers belief for what it truly is: a belief (unproven).

If you are a person who is happy to believe then fair play, but never discount a thinker's right to question validity of any 'way'.

The experience I had of seeing the whole universe through god's eyes was an illness-mushroom combo, and despite its overly-real type lucidity, I still class it as a projection of my own mind. I would find it impossible to interpret any such singular experience I would see through my own eyes as being absolutely real. Evidence of god's existence has to be recorded and verified by a respected group of people, people I might add, who have no pre-bias.

We must never give up the 'good work' (either side), keeps life interesting.

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[birch]

The agreement to disagree becomes default when all that is (il)logically left is belief. I would say that a respect of people's beliefs is essential in a peaceful world. But an atheists challenge must be one of exposing a believers belief for what it truly is: a belief (unproven).

If you are a person who is happy to believe then fair play, but never discount a thinker's right to question validity of any 'way'.

The experience I had of seeing the whole universe through god's eyes was an illness-mushroom combo, and despite its overly-real type lucidity, I still class it as a projection of my own mind. I would find it impossible to interpret any such singular experience I would see through my own eyes as being absolutely real. Evidence of god's existence has to be recorded and verified by a respected group of people, people I might add, who have no pre-bias.

We must never give up the 'good work' (either side), keeps life interesting.

very clear. perfect post.

 

[lightgigantic]

The agreement to disagree becomes default when all that is (il)logically left is belief. I would say that a respect of people's beliefs is essential in a peaceful world. But an atheist's challenge must be one of exposing a believer's belief for what it truly is: a belief (unproven).

If you are a person who is happy to believe then fair play, but never discount a thinker's right to question validity of any 'way'.

The experience I had of seeing the whole universe through god's eyes was an illness-mushroom combo, and despite its overly-real type lucidity, I still class it as a projection of my own mind. I would find it impossible to interpret any such singular experience I would see through my own eyes as being absolutely real. Evidence of god's existence has to be recorded and verified by a respected group of people, people I might add, who have no pre-bias.

We must never give up the 'good work' (either side), keeps life interesting.

you do realize that this equally valid to a reductionist's view, yes?

 

[wynn]

Jan -

I PMd you.

 

[wynn]

The agreement to disagree becomes default when all that is (il)logically left is belief. I would say that a respect of people's beliefs is essential in a peaceful world. But an atheist's challenge must be one of exposing a believer's belief for what it truly is: a belief (unproven).

Since when are atheists to be considered omniscient and be granted the supreme position??


You are merely arguing for the supremacy of a mind, while you have nothing but this same mind to prove it is supreme.

 

[universaldistress]

The statement was my conclusive thought. If you wish to contest it (poorly I might add) you will simply be going back down this thread. I feel I have supported the premise of this thread successfully, and if that means I assume a superior position at this time so be it

Carry on 'believing' if that is what makes you happy (or not).