The Creation

[lightgigantic]

If God has always been alive somewhere, then life and existence are not of His doing.


Why has He been given credit for these creations when He couldn't possibly have done either?

huh?
quite the opposite actually.

If god has always been in existence you would expect that his contingent potencies would also be in existence (much like if a sun has always been in existence you would expect that its sunlight etc would also have always been in existence)

 

[iceaura]

Atheism doesn't "have an argument".
”
sure it does
google "atheistic philosophy"

Lots of atheistic philosophies. None of them relevant to "atheism" "having an argument".

(atheism doesn't have an argument, terms do not convey ideas, discussion doesn't involve ideas ...... meh .... and to think I stand accused of babble

And when babbling, dishonesty - once again, quote rather than lie, eh? Those changes are deliberate.

well once again, I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of conveying something without using ideas ....

Deflection gambit 53 refused.

So tell us what - - -

Deflection 54 refused

The topic is your continual attempts to get the consequent assumed in a discussion, and the necessity of your desisting from such rhetorical flim flam.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lots of atheistic philosophies. None of them relevant to "atheism" "having an argument".

Philosophy without an argument?
I guess we can place that gem next to your other assertions such as discussion without ideas or terms ...

And when babbling, dishonesty - once again, quote rather than lie, eh? Those changes are deliberate.

anyone can scroll down three or four posts and see for themself
:shrug:

Deflection gambit 53 refused.
Deflection 54 refused

The topic is your continual attempts to get the consequent assumed in a discussion, and the necessity of your desisting from such rhetorical flim flam.

Your continual attempts to balk at the point of discussion by saying nonsense such as philosophy doesn't have an argument kind of kills anything from the onset

 

[iceaura]

anyone can scroll down three or four posts and see for themself

The apology for that kind of dishonesty should be addressed to me, however, not just them.

And you should stop. This is not stopping:

I guess we can place that gem next to your other assertions such as discussion without ideas or terms ...

Quote rather than lie. It works better, if you have an actual argument or point to make.

Philosophy without an argument?

"Atheism" does not "have a philosophy", either.

Back to the topic: discussion involving the possible existence of a god without assumption of the existence of yours.

 

[lightgigantic]

The apology for that kind of dishonesty should be addressed to me, however, not just them.

And you should stop. This is not stopping: Quote rather than lie. It works better, if you have an actual argument or point to make.
"Atheism" does not "have a philosophy", either.

Back to the topic: discussion involving the possible existence of a god without assumption of the existence of yours.

Well I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of atheism not having a philosophy (but hey, what's the point ... in 6 or 7 posts you will probably try and convince me that you never made the assertion anyway)
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

Well I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of atheism not having a philosophy (but hey, what's the point ... in 6 or 7 posts you will probably try and convince me that you never made the assertion anyway)

Simple: Atheism. Check for a philosophy that it has - none.

Your point?

The topic?

 

[lightgigantic]

Simple: Atheism. Check for a philosophy that it has

OK

Now what?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

huh?
quite the opposite actually.

If god has always been in existence you would expect that his contingent potencies would also be in existence (much like if a sun has always been in existence you would expect that its sunlight etc would also have always been in existence)

Unfortunately His existence and place of being would not have God as a cause. Those two wonderful creations would have to be something else's. Since life and realm were not of His doing then God did not create them. Impossible for Him to have done so since they are not contingent on Him. No contingency...no potency.

No star as far I know has always been in existence. Too bad theists can't see the light.

 

[lightgigantic]

Unfortunately His existence and place of being would not have God as a cause. Those two wonderful creations would have to be something else's. Since life and realm were not of His doing then God did not create them. Impossible for Him to have done so since they are not contingent on Him. No contingency...no potency.

Then once again, it appears you insist on discussing a god that is not omnipotent

No star as far I know has always been in existence. Too bad theists can't see the light.

ditto above

 

[iceaura]

Simple: Atheism. Check for a philosophy that it has
”
OK

Now what?

That's a list of a bunch of different philosophies espoused by different atheists. None of them are espoused by all atheists, and there are many atheists who espouse none of them.

So none of them is a philosophy that "atheism", itself, has - if in fact atheism is the sort of entity that can, in any way, "have a philosophy". I don't think it is, but regardless it would be none of those.

And we note that your original demand - that I present "an example" of atheism - atheism itself, the entity or category, not someone's atheistic view - not having a philosophy, is gibberish. You might as well ask for an example of colorlessness, the entity or category, not having a size.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's a list of a bunch of different philosophies espoused by different atheists.

hence there are several philosophies within atheism ... as (you espoused in an attempt to avoid a philosophical discussion) opposed to none

None of them are espoused by all atheists, and there are many atheists who espouse none of them.

So none of them is a philosophy that "atheism", itself, has - if in fact atheism is the sort of entity that can, in any way, "have a philosophy". I don't think it is, but regardless it would be none of those.

you could use such an intellectually dishonest means of reasoning to avoid a philosophical discussion on just about any issue and the parties that represent it. I mean there are several different (and sometimes opposing) philosophical camps within theism, so theism also has no philosophy/

And we note that your original demand - that I present "an example" of atheism - atheism itself, the entity or category, not someone's atheistic view - not having a philosophy, is gibberish. You might as well ask for an example of colorlessness, the entity or category, not having a size.

Of course this is a nonsense argument.

When all else fails, consult wiki :

Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[7] rationalism, and naturalism,[8] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

 

[iceaura]

I mean there are several different (and sometimes opposing) philosophical camps within theism, so theism also has no philosophy

That is also largely true - although there is the premise that there is at least one god, a sort of rudimentary philosophy, that theism has by definition and atheism (being negatively defined) does not have.

There's no argument there, though - so there isn't even that for an argument, returning to your original assertion (that "atheism" "has an argument").

That is why attempts to attack theism by objecting to its argument are empty. Attempts to deal with atheism by discussing its argument are likewise bootless.

When all else fails, consult wiki :

You have consulted wiki about atheists, and it presents you with common behaviors of ( a certain kind of) atheists, and arguments those atheists who do you the favor of bothering to argue with you frequently employ.

Atheism itself is not arguing with you, and wiki there does not address the matter at hand here.

you could use such an intellectually dishonest means of reasoning to avoid a philosophical discussion on just about any issue and the parties that represent it.

No, you couldn't. Well, you probably could, and would try, but if you notice I am specifically invoking the relevance of actual arguments that exist, and the parties employing them.

 

[lightgigantic]

That is also largely true - although there is the premise that there is at least one god, a sort of rudimentary philosophy, that theism has by definition and atheism (being negatively defined) does not have.

similarly there is one dominant antithesis within atheism - namely that there is no god ... and its from this that all the values, arguments and ideology stems

There's no argument there, though - so there isn't even that for an argument, returning to your original assertion (that "atheism" "has an argument").

If there is no argument, there are no values, ideologies or even social communities that can be identified.

Obviously this is not the case.

:shrug:

That is why attempts to attack theism by objecting to its argument are empty. Attempts to deal with atheism by discussing its argument are likewise bootless.

Actually when you happen to encounter two diametrically opposed ideologies, a conflict ensues.
Even Sci is testament to that.

You have consulted wiki about atheists, and it presents you with common behaviors of ( a certain kind of) atheists, and arguments those atheists who do you the favor of bothering to argue with you frequently employ.

If other types of atheists happen to come along and garner enough social or ideological merit, I'm sure they will also get a mention.

Atheism itself is not arguing with you, and wiki there does not address the matter at hand here.

no "-ism" argues with anyone.

Its the "-ists" who do

No, you couldn't. Well, you probably could, and would try, but if you notice I am specifically invoking the relevance of actual arguments that exist, and the parties employing them.

What I have noticed is that you are feathering your cap by trying to establish the ground rules for discussion in your favour (by trying to play atheism as some sort of meta-narrative)

 

[iceaura]

similarly there is one dominant antithesis within atheism - namely that there is no god ... and its from this that all the values, arguments and ideology stems

Backwards, as well as muddled with the usual misused vocabulary.

That is not an "antithesis within atheism", and most atheistic arguments, values, etc, lead to it rather than stem from it.

If there is no argument, there are no values, ideologies or even social communities that can be identified.

Identified as what? No values, ideologies, or social communities are "atheism".

no "-ism" argues with anyone.

Hold that thought.

What I have noticed is that you are feathering your cap by trying to establish the ground rules for discussion in your favour (by trying to play atheism as some sort of meta-narrative)

That's not what "feathering one's cap" means.

But If we are agreed that refusing to allow the assumption of the existence of a particular deity to frame discussions of the existence of deity establishes the ground rules in my favor, I'm satisfied with my feather, over and out.

 

[lightgigantic]

Backwards, as well as muddled with the usual misused vocabulary.

That is not an "antithesis within atheism",

atheism is an antithesis
I don't know why you find that a controversial point since you paraphrase it in your posts (indeed you find in practically any summary of atheism, regardless of the values of the speaker)

and most atheistic arguments, values, etc, lead to it rather than stem from it

.
fine then

Discuss atheism (or any "ism") divorced from the arguments, values or communities of it.

Identified as what? No values, ideologies, or social communities are "atheism".

well duh
yet for some funny reason the act of placing an "ism" to the end of any word is to suggest a host of values, ideologies and/or social communities that back it.

I mean if you seriously want to continue with such grammatical anal douche baggery, one could say that communism never took political hold in russia

Hold that thought.

I'ld rather not.
it smells like a douche bag

That's not what "feathering one's cap" means.

Then I must have got the wrong impression that you were setting the scene to present yourself as victorious

But If we are agreed that refusing to allow the assumption of the existence of a particular deity to frame discussions of the existence of deity establishes the ground rules in my favor, I'm satisfied with my feather, over and out.

Oh?
we agree to house your assumptions?

 

[iceaura]

Discuss atheism (or any "ism") divorced from the arguments, values or communities of it.

The difficulty of discussing atheism in general is undoubtedly great. The Taoists apparently do it by rejecting discussion in the matter. The Buddhists likewise, although they go a bit further and identify that entire arena of thought as "thought", therefore delusion.

That is not an "antithesis within atheism",
”
atheism is an antithesis

No, it isn't. That's like calling "miscellaneous" an antithesis to "car expenses". And if it were, it would not be an "antithesis within atheism".

yet for some funny reason the act of placing an "ism" to the end of any word is to suggest a host of values, ideologies and/or social communities that back it.

Probably one of the motives behind the word - the Catholic Church wanted to set up a target. It's not a coherent concept, otherwise - negatively defined, catchall category.

Hard to attack. One can sympathize. But not pretend, eh?

 

[lightgigantic]

The difficulty of discussing atheism in general is undoubtedly great.

Its got nothing to do with the difficulty of atheism.

The difficulty is simply discussing an "ism" as if it is some how inextricably divorced from the "ists" who represent it.

No, it isn't. That's like calling "miscellaneous" an antithesis to "car expenses". And if it were, it would not be an "antithesis within atheism".

Hardly, since the bulk of the arguments, values and communities of atheism are primarily an antithesis of theism.

Probably one of the motives behind the word - the Catholic Church wanted to set up a target. It's not a coherent concept, otherwise - negatively defined, catchall category.

Hard to attack. One can sympathize. But not pretend, eh?

By your own logic, catholicism doesn't have an argument or values to attack. Its merely some catholics that one might have a disagreement with.

 

[iceaura]

The difficulty is simply discussing an "ism" as if it is some how inextricably divorced from the "ists" who represent it.

Which in the case of a negatively defined catchall category like "atheism" would be the situation in fact.

So you do have a serious difficulty. But that is no reason to pretend to success.

Hardly, since the bulk of the arguments, values and communities of atheism are primarily an antithesis of theism.

Now we are imagining "communities of atheism" and so forth as "an antithesis" of theism? This is getting more bizarre by the post.

By your own logic, catholicism doesn't have an argument or values to attack.

By my logic, Roman Catholicism has "an argument" (accepting your off-key misuse of vocabulary) and values. I can even tell you how to find out what they are - ask the Pope.

Catholicism is a positively defined entity, you see - it has characteristics, not an absence of characteristics.

 

[lightgigantic]

Which in the case of a negatively defined catchall category like "atheism" would be the situation in fact.

actually you could lay the same line on any -ism

So you do have a serious difficulty. But that is no reason to pretend to success.

Its no difficulty.
There's nothing particularly challenging in determining the nature of atheism

Now we are imagining "communities of atheism" and so forth as "an antithesis" of theism?

never occurred to you that atheism has a historical continuum?

This is getting more bizarre by the post.

I'll say

By my logic, Roman Catholicism has "an argument" (accepting your off-key misuse of vocabulary) and values. I can even tell you how to find out what they are - ask the Pope.

too which we can adroitly point out that Catholicism is one thing and catholics are something else.
See how clever I am?

Catholicism is a positively defined entity, you see - it has characteristics, not an absence of characteristics.

So for some reason you can figure out a category based on what it has yet fail to do the same for another based on what it doesn't have?

Tell me do you also have the same problem determining demographic issues for people who don't have cars or houses too?

 

[iceaura]

So for some reason you can figure out a category based on what it has yet fail to do the same for another based on what it doesn't have?

Yep.

And you are in the same boat.

Tell me do you also have the same problem determining demographic issues for people who don't have cars or houses too?

In general, yes. I have to narrow things down to geographic area, etc, to get a handle on them. At least, some info about which continent they are on helps - carlessness in Antarctica has entirely different implications from carlessness in the Amazon rain forest, or New York City.

And of course I don't mistake such correlations for the state of carlessness having an argument or philosophy, assume there is a car present and available when discussing the nature of the choice of carlessness, and so forth.