In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Can an agnostic be morale?
Not that I'm aware.
It's moral, not morale. Morale refers to a group's state of happiness. Moral is a judgement on right action.
It's not helping.
BTW, this fellow has some interesting ideas that might be interjected into this discussion . . . . . .
Excerpt from an essay entitled:
UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE
James A. Putnam
c. 2003
“Our ability, or even an insect's ability, to analyze hoards of always changing, almost random
data coming to us at the speed of light is demonstration that something magnificent is occurring
within our minds. What this means is our conscious mind is in communication with a
subconscious mind that already knows what to do. It also means the universe is in
communication with our subconscious minds. The universe sends us information for which we
must already know the meaning. Our intelligence contains the meaning of the
universe. Universal intelligence is our intelligence.”
Source Link: http://newphysicstheory.com/New Physics Theory 2014/Universal_Intelligence.pdf
Excerpt from an essay entitled:
UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE
James A. Putnam
c. 2003
“Our ability, or even an insect's ability, to analyze hoards of always changing, almost random
data coming to us at the speed of light is demonstration that something magnificent is occurring
within our minds. What this means is our conscious mind is in communication with a
subconscious mind that already knows what to do. It also means the universe is in
communication with our subconscious minds. The universe sends us information for which we
must already know the meaning. Our intelligence contains the meaning of the
universe. Universal intelligence is our intelligence.”
Source Link: http://newphysicstheory.com/New Physics Theory 2014/Universal_Intelligence.pdf
Can I go to heaven if I don't believe in God?
Well, OK.
Pretty much sums up all your posts.
It is implied.
Already explained.
Already explained.
Where?
Said the person who never dismisses what people say.
I said I never dismiss the words.
All atheists are without God, on account that God does not exist as far as they are aware. While I hear, listen, and may even respond to their notions of God, I don't accept them
You don't have to say it.
It comes as part of the atheist package.
I assert that God Is.
Objective and subjective reality is accessible because of God, from all descriptions. So to say God exists, like a table exists, is to not comprehend the nature of God.
I have already explained this on numerous occasions.
Therefore God does not currently exist, until such time that you know for sure. Which is why you don't have to write or utter the words in order for it to be true.
I've claimed that God Is.
You actually claim that you do not know whether or not God exists, which means God does not currently exist until such time that you know whether He does or doesn't.
You're trying to use ''I don't whether or not God exists'' as an actual practical position, but it isn't. God does not currently exist as far as you're aware, and we both know that.
I start from the natural positition (as has been shown) that God exists (we may not call it God but it is the same concept). You start from the position God does not exist, or there is no evidence that convinces you the your concept of God exists, therefore God does not currently exist as far as you're aware.
No you don't. You are evading.
Which questions have I evaded?
Already explained.
jan.
No, it is merely assumed on your part, presumably because that is the view your strawman has.
And I'm asking for a summary of your position: do you contend that God has an objective existence, or a wholly subjective one?
Please do not evade. Whether you have explained before or not, please have the decency to answer this question.
Eh? I am asking if you agree that one can be aware of wholly subjective things. Are you asking where you would be aware of it? If so, what exactly do you mean by that?
Exactly: you dismiss them on the basis of what the person who is saying them is, or at least your preconceptions of them, rather than the words they actually say. Ad hominem fallacy. Epitome thereof.
Ah, yes, your strawman package.
Look, Jan, since you want nothing more than to argue against your strawman notion of an atheist, where you presume everything about the atheist, and dismiss what they actually say, I will set up your own thread for you. If all you want to do is carry on on that course, please do so in that thread.
If, however, you want to carry on with actual atheists then put the strawman down and stop making unwarranted assumptions about them, their views, their motivations.
You have explained, but it doesn't actually answer the question, and it seems to show that you don't actually understand what objective and subjective mean in this regard.
You have claimed you do understand, so I will ask again: do you mean that God has an objective existence or a wholly subjective one?
No, it means I do not know. I can't say that God does currently exist anymore than I can say God does not currently exist. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, this agnosticism, yet you seem to have trouble.
In order for you to think that it is true, you mean. But if you, you know, listen to what is being said, you will/should realise your thinking is wrong, for the explanations given.
You certainly have. Repeatedly.
No, it means, unsuprisingly, that I do not know. If you wish to assert that not knowing equates to not existing, that is between you and your strawman.
Who says I'm trying to use it as a practical position? Your strawman?
Atheism is an intellectual position, as are all matters of belief, lack of belief. As indeed is agnosticism. What one then does with it is practical.
No, it is not the same concept. I can see how you want it to be, but it isn't. The author of the piece certainly makes that leap but it is still fallacious.
Furthermore, being natural does not make it correct, or even the position we should start from once we develop our critical thinking skills. From an evolutionary standpoint it might well be merely a coping mechanism until such time as our intelligence develops and takes over.
No, I do not start from that position. I start from the position of putting aside any preconceived notions of God. I start from a blank slate. But I guess this doesn't match your strawman's starting point, so must be confusing for you.
Evading what? The questions I ask you???
But heck, you don't dismiss what people say, do you. No sir, not at all.
Does God have an objective existence or is God wholly subjective? And yes, giving a confusing non-answer is evading.
No, you have merely evaded.
That is the summary.
Quote where I agreed.
You don't need me in this discussion. Do you?
You can, because God does not currently exist as far as you're aware.
The blank slate is devoid of comprehension, and awareness of God.
IOW God does not exist, hence the the term "blank".
Anything to do with God, is confusing to you. Because you cannot comprehend God.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
As always, this is an ad hom. And a cop out.
If you wish to make any assertions at all about God, the burden lies with you to first show that there'as a God to make assertions about.
You keep referring to this mysterious blob of knowledge that supposedly you know but we don't. The burden lies with you to present this blob of knowledge.
If we cannot comprehend your argument, here, in this discussion, that is because you have been unable to make it, here, in this discussion.
If you can't, then you've lost your argument.
You can't. You've lost your argument.