Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

this philosopher argued that the fundamental action of history and human reason is the dialectic, proceeding in the form thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

what is (insert parable here)

AbaddonFidelis wrote:this philosopher argued that the fundamental action of history and human reason is the dialectic, proceeding in the form thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

what is (insert parable here)

Bob Denver. Or John Denver. It was a Denver.

lol

AbaddonFidelis wrote: I firmly believe that flying spaghetti monsters dont exist - not on the basis of rationality, since there is no rational basis for believing those things do not anywhere exist - but on the basis of my plain old every day common sense.

*bows back in*

WHAT!? rational thinking and common sense are the same thing. Can you really not see the bold faced contradiction in that phrase?

Lets stop for a second seriously and take a deep breath... no one has to get angry, or defensive, we are not enemies, lets imagine we are in a calm place, just two people talking calmly... and lets just go over that slowly one more time, because I really want to understand this.

Being rational... being an ordinary rational person. A person who can look at what's around them, make fair and reasonable judgements about it, agrees 2+2 is 4, here is here, there is there. Able to listen to reason. A rational person.

And...

A person using common sense. A person who is sensible and able to make sensible decisions. Also should agree 2+2 is 4. here is here, there is there etc... etc...

Are these really different things? I mean really?

I'll tell you what I think...

We are in agreement about the flying spaghetti monster, It is an absurd idea. Any rational person, using their common sense can see that it is an absurd idea with no basis in reality. There is no evidence of it existing, there is no reason for it to exist, there is no phenomenon that goes unexplained without the flying spaghetti monster. The flying spaghetti monster does no exist.

Now lets try Father Christmas. When I was young I was told Father Christmas was real, if I was good he'd bring me presents, if I was bad I was told I'd get cinders. Of course I believed all this because kids will believe pretty much anything. There even seemed to be positive proof, I'd wake up and find presents! and my parents would tell me Father Christmas had left them (though oddly I always seemed to miss his visits). One Christmas my farther took me out to the city, and I met Father Christmas at a department store... Then we met him again outside selling chestnuts. I thought it was odd that Father Christmas could be in two places at once and look completely different. But it didn't makes sense, but then I knew Father Christmas was real so it didn't really matter.
One time a kid at my school told me that there was no Father Christmas, he said he had woken up and seen that it was just his parents. Of course I refused to believe it, I even lied to him and said that I had gone up on my roof and seen sled marks and reindeer hooves (but this wasn't true).

Eventually though I stopped believing in Father Christmas. Like the spaghetti monster it is an absurd idea. No one could deliver a billion presents in one night, and no one ever did. My parents eventually admitted that the presents were from them, I learned that the guy in the department store was just some old guy paid to dress up. It turned out there was a rational explanation for the whole thing.

I hope we are both in agreement that Father Christmas does not exist. There is no hard evidence of him existing, no confirmed sightings of his sleigh or his house in lapland. Common sense tells us that it is just a fun but entirely made up story for Children.

Moving on... So far we have both been reasonable people using our common sense, and we are in agreement that the flying spaghetti monster and Father Christmas don't really exist. They are just made up (even if one is very traditional).

But alas we come to God and suddenly we disagree. What has gone wrong? I feel that I am still being reasonable and using my common sense. There is no evidence for god, he doesn't explain anything without raising a million times more questions... Common sense to me suggests that just like Father Christmas, God is an endearing but entirely made up traditional character.

Lets move on to you... Suddenly when it comes to God you stop making any sense. You start saying that actually logic and reason and rational thinking are at fault... Not the absurd idea that doesn't fit any better than the other absurd ideas. You claim common sense and rationality are entirely different things?

This is always the problem talking to people who believe in god. They actually don't use common sense, they can't see that god is just one of a million absurd superstitions that have no basis in reality. They use common sense for everything else... just not god.

I'm not sure why this is. I think it is because people tend to be conditioned from a vary young age that god is real and he made the world. And when people start showing you that he is in all probability not real, people just don't want to hear it. It's like some kind of mental defence mechanism kicks in to protect the consciousness. And the people just stop making any sense and start talking complete nonsense, like creationists... who even in the face of overwhelming evidence refuse point blank to accept what is obvious. That is Brain Washing for you.

I don't want to tell you that you are wrong, I don't think you are unintelligent. All I just want to help you snap out of a life time of brain washing and look at things objectively... just like you looked at the spaghetti monster and father Christmas objectively. I't probably not going to hurt me if you go on believing, but do yourself a favour... Open your eyes.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:they probably are if they held theistic beliefs that were maladaptive. In that case I'd say their atheism is more true than their previous theism..... its just an inferrence though. of course I dont know whats really going on in their heads and I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.

This is the boat I'm leaning towards. The moment I lost the fear of an afterlife the quality of my mindset improved dramatically because I had a whole lot less to worry about. Combine that with the fact that I now know the people in suits and strict teachers were wrong when making sweeping generalizations that I had to accomplish X, Y and Z or I wasn't good enough as a person and I get to do whatever I want to blow off steam now (sex, drugs, fun!) without feeling guilty, I'm really better off.

@Smack: I'd say common sense = rationality, but in different usage. 2+2=4. Duh. This can be demonstrated, I've observed it a million times and I've yet to see it not be true. This is common sense. Yet if I'm doing a "proof" for math class, they expect me to cite a principal that says why 2+2=4. That's what I would consider rationality. Yay for definition by example, the weakest form of definition :p

SmackCakes wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: I firmly believe that flying spaghetti monsters dont exist - not on the basis of rationality, since there is no rational basis for believing those things do not anywhere exist - but on the basis of my plain old every day common sense.

*bows back in*

WHAT!? rational thinking and common sense are the same thing. Can you really not see the bold faced contradiction in that phrase?

no..... I dont see it. common sense just means what seems reasonable at a glance. rationality means more than that. In this context it means a commitment to the formal rules of logic, according to which you cant prove a negative. In other words, since you can never know that there is no such thing as a flying spaghetti monster, you dont have any business declaring that no such thing exists. Does such a thing exist? I doubt it. Thats common sense. Not ratinoality. Rationally there's no way I could know one way or another. I should stay strictly neutral.

SmackCakes wrote:
Lets stop for a second seriously and take a deep breath... no one has to get angry, or defensive, we are not enemies, lets imagine we are in a calm place, just two people talking calmly... and lets just go over that slowly one more time, because I really want to understand this.

sure.

SmackCakes wrote:
Being rational... being an ordinary rational person. A person who can look at what's around them, make fair and reasonable judgements about it, agrees 2+2 is 4, here is here, there is there. Able to listen to reason. A rational person.

And...

A person using common sense. A person who is sensible and able to make sensible decisions. Also should agree 2+2 is 4. here is here, there is there etc... etc...

Are these really different things? I mean really?

I dont mean rational in the sense that you mean it. In the sense you're using it they're the same and there isnt a difference.

SmackCakes wrote:
I'll tell you what I think...

We are in agreement about the flying spaghetti monster, It is an absurd idea. Any rational person, using their common sense can see that it is an absurd idea with no basis in reality. There is no evidence of it existing, there is no reason for it to exist, there is no phenomenon that goes unexplained without the flying spaghetti monster.

yes thats true.

SmackCakes wrote:
The flying spaghetti monster does no exist.

that doesnt follow. just because you've seen no evidence of such a thing doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If you had never been to a museum or watched the discovery channel (etc etc) and I told you that hundreds of millions of years ago gigantic carnivorous lizards used to roam the earth and devour each other, you might say "thats absurd. never happened." thats common sense. Or you might say "I have no way of knowing it didnt happen so maybe it did and maybe it didnt. cant tell." thats rationality. In this case rationality would have served you better than common sense. In the spaghetti monster case probably common sense is what serves you better. But strictly speaking we do not and cannot know that such a thing doesnt exist.

SmackCakes wrote:
Now lets try Father Christmas. When I was young I was told Father Christmas was real, if I was good he'd bring me presents, if I was bad I was told I'd get cinders. Of course I believed all this because kids will believe pretty much anything. There even seemed to be positive proof, I'd wake up and find presents! and my parents would tell me Father Christmas had left them (though oddly I always seemed to miss his visits). One Christmas my farther took me out to the city, and I met Father Christmas at a department store... Then we met him again outside selling chestnuts. I thought it was odd that Father Christmas could be in two places at once and look completely different. But it didn't makes sense, but then I knew Father Christmas was real so it didn't really matter.
One time a kid at my school told me that there was no Father Christmas, he said he had woken up and seen that it was just his parents. Of course I refused to believe it, I even lied to him and said that I had gone up on my roof and seen sled marks and reindeer hooves (but this wasn't true).

Eventually though I stopped believing in Father Christmas. Like the spaghetti monster it is an absurd idea. No one could deliver a billion presents in one night, and no one ever did. My parents eventually admitted that the presents were from them, I learned that the guy in the department store was just some old guy paid to dress up. It turned out there was a rational explanation for the whole thing.

Its not rationally impossible that santa clause exists. Its just damn unlikely. In the presence of overwhelming evidence that its parents, not santa clause, that delivers toys, you probably shouldnt believe in his existance. thats common sense. not rationality.

SmackCakes wrote:
I hope we are both in agreement that Father Christmas does not exist. There is no hard evidence of him existing, no confirmed sightings of his sleigh or his house in lapland. Common sense tells us that it is just a fun but entirely made up story for Children.

yeah we agree about that.

smackcakes wrote:
Moving on... So far we have both been reasonable people using our common sense, and we are in agreement that the flying spaghetti monster and Father Christmas don't really exist. They are just made up (even if one is very traditional).

But alas we come to God and suddenly we disagree. What has gone wrong? I feel that I am still being reasonable and using my common sense. There is no evidence for god, he doesn't explain anything without raising a million times more questions... Common sense to me suggests that just like Father Christmas, God is an endearing but entirely made up traditional character.

I dont think thats a non-sensical position. plenty of highly reasonable people believe that god doesnt exist. what I'm arguing is that its not rationality, but something else, that tells you God doesnt exist. In this case you draw an analogy with a fairy tail and say "they're basically the same thing, I dont believe the one or the other." if you find that convincing then thats as far as it goes - you find it convincing. I think there's more to the question than that.

SmackCakes wrote:
Lets move on to you... Suddenly when it comes to God you stop making any sense. You start saying that actually logic and reason and rational thinking are at fault... Not the absurd idea that doesn't fit any better than the other absurd ideas. You claim common sense and rationality are entirely different things?

rationality is valid as far as it goes. like anything else its reliable in some circumstances and not reliable in others. A rational, self-interested young woman would have no interest in having children. its inconvenient, its expensive, it takes alot of time and energy, it can ruin your figure, etc. but women keep having children. why? not for any rational reason. its plainly irrational to do it. they do it for irrational reasons - because they desire to nurture a young life, because they have a maternal instinct, because it feels good, whatever. these are irrational not rational motivations, and they're completely valid.

SmackCakes wrote:
This is always the problem talking to people who believe in god. They actually don't use common sense, they can't see that god is just one of a million absurd superstitions that have no basis in reality. They use common sense for everything else... just not god.

well whats evident to you might not be so evident to other people. alot of people think its self evident that an ordered, intelligible universe requires conscious design on the part of some all-mighty creator. does it? I dont know. I just dont think that whats obvious to you is much of a guide to the rationality of other people. Some people can just look at a math equation and solve it without doing much of anything. I cant. I have to work it out. What's obvious to him isnt obvious to me.

SmackCakes wrote:
I'm not sure why this is. I think it is because people tend to be conditioned from a vary young age that god is real and he made the world. And when people start showing you that he is in all probability not real, people just don't want to hear it. It's like some kind of mental defence mechanism kicks in to protect the consciousness. And the people just stop making any sense and start talking complete nonsense, like creationists... who even in the face of overwhelming evidence refuse point blank to accept what is obvious. That is Brain Washing for you.

I don't want to tell you that you are wrong, I don't think you are unintelligent. All I just want to help you snap out of a life time of brain washing and look at things objectively... just like you looked at the spaghetti monster and father Christmas objectively. I't probably not going to hurt me if you go on believing, but do yourself a favour... Open your eyes.

I thought we were going to keep things calm and rational.......? I think you're a smart guy too. Don't be so quick to dismiss other peoples experiences. On the basis of rationality alone we can no more say that God doesnt exist than we can that the spaghetti monster doesn't. On the basis of common sense it seems more convincing to me to suppose that he does than that he doesnt. after all the universe has to come from somewhere. To me what really matters in a case like this, where empirical evidence is impossible to gather, is adaptability. If people who believe X are better adapted as a rule than people who believe Y, then belief X is more probably true than belief Y. On that basis I think that belief in God makes alot of sense. From my own experience (and I can dig up supporting quotes from others if you want) atheism is a lonely, hollow, ultimately self-defeating way of looking at the world while Christianity and theism more generally is a life-affirming, consoling, deeply meaningful way of looking at life. If thats true and you cant know the facts one way or another, then why would anyone choose to believe something that hinders his life rather than helps it?AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:they probably are if they held theistic beliefs that were maladaptive. In that case I'd say their atheism is more true than their previous theism..... its just an inferrence though. of course I dont know whats really going on in their heads and I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.

This is the boat I'm leaning towards. The moment I lost the fear of an afterlife the quality of my mindset improved dramatically because I had a whole lot less to worry about. Combine that with the fact that I now know the people in suits and strict teachers were wrong when making sweeping generalizations that I had to accomplish X, Y and Z or I wasn't good enough as a person and I get to do whatever I want to blow off steam now (sex, drugs, fun!) without feeling guilty, I'm really better off.

sure. if atheism frees you from self-defeating patterns of thought and doesnt create new ones then you've moved closer to the truth. I support that.... It's the psychological not the factual content thats really important since you cant know the facts about God 1 way or the other. AF

I think you are making up your own version of rationality. The way you are using it is not the commonly accepted way.

I' m not even necessarily fully atheist, I'm just not religious by any defined standards. There well could be super natural stuff, but I am very convinced that if there is, nobody has it 100% right here.

If AF's arguments get any more ridiculous I might have to get involved after all...

...Then you'll ALL be in the gak!

Sorry Alby, god told me you were wrong.

If I'm using words that are too big for you, albatross, just say so.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If I'm using words that are too big for you, albatross, just say so.

Well firstly, if you want to take snide jabs at me learn to type like a fully literate adult.

Also, claiming that it's irrational not to believe in (cringe, hate this illustrative device!) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just risible in the extreme.

Albatross wrote:If AF's arguments get any more ridiculous I might have to get involved after all...

who'se making snide jabs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
Also, claiming that it's irrational not to believe in (cringe, hate this illustrative device!) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just risible in the extreme.

I have no idea what you're talking about. do you?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Albatross wrote:If AF's arguments get any more ridiculous I might have to get involved after all...

who'se making snide jabs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
Also, claiming that it's irrational not to believe in (cringe, hate this illustrative device!) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just risible in the extreme.

read a book.

I'll make a deal with you - I'll read any book you like as soon as you LEARN TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS.

lol. you're so cute.

sebster wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.

If you reject things because they're tricky to wrap your head around then you must really hate high level physics.

I actually find high level physics far easier to grasp than modern theistic arguments. Even string theory, which I will admit I frankly don't understand, seems more graspable than the modern concept of God.

Modern theists are forced to define God in ways that are untestable, because otherwise we would test them -- and since all previous attempts to define God in a testable manner have left egg on theist's face, one can understand why they would be loathe to do so. But when you define God as a thing that can never be tested, as a thing that can defy logic and sense, then you are defining god as a thing which -- by its nature -- cannot be understood. So then what does it mean to say you believe in God? It means you believe in something which, by definition, you can know nothing about and cannot comprehend.

And here's the real problem: The argument for the existence of the god of modern theism relies entirely on retreating to a position of absurdity -- and I don't mean that as an insult. The Christian philosopher Kirkegaard (inventor of angst) actually describes a person who makes the leap of faith as a Knight of the Absurd. It is a retreat to something beyond rationality, but once one makes that retreat, one has lost the grounds to be reasonable. One is forced to make the sort of argument that AF is making, that one should believe in god because it makes one happy.

To which I think the best response is "Did you know that God's name is Eris and the He is a girl?" Because seriously, if we're going to embrace God because it makes us happy, why should we embrace a stuffy, judgmental and arrogant god like Yahweh, when we could embrace the Goddess of Chaos, a smoking hot bitch goddess who knows how to have a good time and laugh at a joke? Her rules sure are a lot easier to follow and there's half as many of them -- 1 there is no Goddess but the Goddess, 2 always use the official discordian numbering system, 3 partake of a hot dog on fridays, 4 hot dog buns are strictly prohibited, 5 you may not believe anything you read -- and, unlike most religions, one is actively encouraged to not follow the rules unless you want to.

Seriously why this...



When you could make the equally absurd leap to this?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:lol. you're so cute.

I know.

Anyhow,

We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.

I have wings. Actually I made that up.

In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?

The majority of them don't call themselves atheists because atheism simply isn't a defining component of their belief set. As I said before, the New Age movement is a prime example. I'd also argue that most Buddhists are as well.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)

As I said before, utility does make something true. It may be useful for me to believe that dream-catchers filter out bad dreams, but it doesn't actually mean that they do. Even regarding your analogy of the machine you must note that it isn't the belief in the function of the machine that makes it work, but rather the fact that the machine really does work in the real world that supports the fact that its design is predicated on true principals.

To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.
AF

dogma wrote:The majority of them don't call themselves atheists because atheism simply isn't a defining component of their belief set. As I said before, the New Age movement is a prime example.I'd also argue that most Buddhists are as well.

Buddhism teaches that all of perceived reality is maya, or illusions created by the mind, and this includes God. So Buddhist do not claim that God does not exist, only that God is an illusion. So whether Buddhists are atheists or not is dependent on whether illusions are real or not. I think its fair to count Buddhists as atheists.

Taoism is another example. Taoism teaches that god is at best a weak metaphor for something that can not be comprehended by the mind, the tao, and that any attempt to describe the tao will always fail due to the inability to express an infinity of possibility in words. So Taoists are also atheists.

As I said before, utility does not make something true. It may be useful for me to believe that dream-catchers filter out bad dreams, but it doesn't actually mean that they do. Even regarding your analogy of the machine you must note that it isn't the belief in the function of the machine that makes it work, but rather the fact that the machine really does work in the real world that supports the fact that its design is predicated on true principals.

Fixed that for you.

Also, you know what really pisses me off? People who hang dreamcatchers from their rearview mirror. Unless you sleep in your car that makes no damn sense at all, and is just pissing on native culture. New ager jerks.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?

The majority of them don't call themselves atheists because atheism simply isn't a defining component of their belief set. As I said before, the New Age movement is a prime example. I'd also argue that most Buddhists are as well.

certain forms of buddhism, maybe. Any thervada buddhists in the room? Mahyana buddhists are another ball of wax. I wouldnt hesitate to describe them as theists. I dont think new agers really apply here either..... on what basis are you calling them atheists? Shirly McClain and Sylvia Brown certainly believe in God.... not that there's any kind of uniformity in that group in any case. Everyone just sort of makes up their own thing. Some of them might not believe in God. I guess its possible. The exception that proves the rule if you ask me.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)

As I said before, utility does make something true. It may be useful for me to believe that dream-catchers filter out bad dreams, but it doesn't actually mean that they do. Even regarding your analogy of the machine you must note that it isn't the belief in the function of the machine that makes it work, but rather the fact that the machine really does work in the real world that supports the fact that its design is predicated on true principals.

what would be the practical effect of your belief that dream catchers filter out bad dreams? that you'll be happier if you have one around. If you have one around and you're happier then the core of your belief was true, just not in the way you intended. No, its not the belief of the observer that makes its true, its the belief of the designer that does. But even if I never met the designer, I could infer that he knew what he was doing (or didnt) by observing the operations of the machine that he built. I dont want to go round and round on this topic though bc it seems to me that we understand each other pretty well, we just dont assign the same significance to utility.

Albatross wrote:
We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.

I have wings. Actually I made that up.

In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Woah. Did...did Albatross just use logic to disprove the Spaghetti Monster?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.

Why don't you stay away from the personal attacks, Abby, or I might just have to point out that in poorly arguing for the theist position you have essentially said "Being an atheist made me unhappy, so I decided to give up on intellectual integrity and just start lying to myself."

Which, if you think about it, is kinda pathetic.

EDIT: Did you just call Eris an elf god?

She's Greek, buster, and you better not forget it, or you'll suffer her wrath. And considering she invented war in revenge for being snubbed at a party, you should try and avoid that wrath. We don't call her a bitch goddess for nothing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:
We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.

I have wings. Actually I made that up.

In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Woah. Did...did Albatross just use logic to disprove the Spaghetti Monster?

Das right!

OT: Do you think my new avatar makes me look like the jackbooted fascist thug Gailbraithe probably thinks I am? Hitler was an Atheist, you know...

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.

Why don't you stay away from the personal attacks, Abby,

ooooh hit a little close to home did I?

Nevermind. Once again I am letting you bait me....... you desperately want to go bonkers while all of us watch. I'm not going to contribute to that any more than I already have. Please, have the last word. Again.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.

Why don't you stay away from the personal attacks, Abby,

ooooh hit a little close to home did I?

No, I just don't find your strategy of defending theism by making personal attacks on atheists to be particularly valid or useful.

So far this conversation has been fairly fun, don't spoil that just because you're losing. That's just poor sportsmanship.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Taoism is another example. Taoism teaches that god is at best a weak metaphor for something that can not be comprehended by the mind, the tao, and that any attempt to describe the tao will always fail due to the inability to express an infinity of possibility in words. So Taoists are also atheists.

I agree with you on the Buddhism score, but how does this description make Taoists atheists? At best it makes them agnostics, they believe that God is simply beyond comprehension or description. They don't claim that it doesn't exist, just that any attempt to describe or classify it doesn't do the being justice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
OT: Do you think my new avatar makes me look like the jackbooted fascist thug Gailbraithe probably thinks I am? Hitler was an Atheist, you know...

It's less angry than your previous one, but slightly more menacing. And I don't think Gailbraithe needs a picture or anything to throw at the label 'fascist' at will.

I can somewhat respect your point of view AbaddonFidelis if you are talking about the universe having an intelligent designer. The universe is very mysterious, and if it did turn out to be some kind of simulation or creation then that probably wouldn't be any stranger than any other reason.

In fact that would be a perfectly rational and satisfying answer to why the universe exists... Though of course that would still leave the question of where the designer come from, which leads us back round in a circle.

But an intelligent designer is not the same as the god of the bible. I think the evidence supporting the bible being a man mad book is quite compelling. And it does bother me deeply that there are people standing in the way of medical research, and telling people in Africa not to use condoms in the midst of an AIDS epidemic. Because of a book that written thousands of years ago and is really quite brutal and patchy when compared to a modern view of what is ethical.

If there is an intelligent designer. I see nothing that makes me believe that he hears our prayers, guides us, cares about us at all, or even knows we exist.

yes.... the universe is very mysterious. reason has its limits. the only resolution to the first cause paradox is to assume that the premise every effect has a cause is mistaken. in the light of recent developments in quantum physics that seems increasingly likely. AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
like newtonian physics causality may be true to within a very high degree of accuracy for our daily lives but not in a universal sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:lol. you're so cute.

I know.

Anyhow,

We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.

there are no rational grounds for believing or disbelieving in the existence of such a thing, since there is no evidence in the affirmative and it is impossible to prove a negative. I'm not saying there's a flying spaghetti monster. I'm saying that rationality has its limits.

albatross wrote:
I have wings. Actually I made that up.

In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

what is rational is to withold judgement. I can't see if you have wings so I can't say you do. I can't see that you don't, so I can't say you don't. No I don't believe you have wings. Not because I'm rational. Because I employ common sense.
AF

Gailbraithe,

You keep attacking theism and saying how ridiculous and preposterous it is, but there are different types of theism, depending on the varying definitions of god that are out there.

You seem to be criticizing monotheism and polytheism, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of a monotheistic creator god.

By using the word theism, which can be thrown around pretty loosely, you are lumping all forms of theism together. Not sure if this is intentional or not, as you seem to be concentrating on the monotheism and polytheism.