Atheism

[numberguy12]

BTW, this whole back and forth about "objective truth"is in reality just so much mutual masturbation. None of you are saying anything that hasn't already been said, and none of you are advancing the concept in any way.

Karl Popper figured this out a few decades ago, and pointed out why the whole debate is asinine.

The TRUTH is that you can't prove anything beyond a formal mathematical statement, and if you want to address objective reality, the only way to do so is not asserting or attempting to prove what it is, but by systematically and gradually discovering what it is not.

This is a post I can make sense out of. Agreed with this.

[AltarOfPlagues]

BTW, this whole back and forth about "objective truth"is in reality just so much mutual masturbation. None of you are saying anything that hasn't already been said, and none of you are advancing the concept in any way.

uh yea none of us are philosophers, we are just miscers bro lol.

you are welcome to post up some karl popper humeanism, there's no need to abig butt hole about it lol.

"huuurrr durrr by the way none of the miscers on the r/p subforum of a bodybuilding website are creating new inroads in the field of philosophical inquiry"

fukkin jerk dude lol

just glanced at the extended discussion on this page above....

Rule of thumb. When you see long drawn out discussions featuring terms like "objective reality", "being", "necessarily knowable".......run for the hills!

You are dealing with a babble-filled philosophical conversation. I see the self-proclaimed "philosopher" IAMRED is at it again (smh).

do you like it when people are this dismissive about math?

"i dont understand it so it's not important"

[numberguy12]

do you like it when people are this dismissive about math?

"i dont understand it so it's not important"

It's not about understanding. There is just a ****-ton of babble in metaphysical discussion like the above. Part of the problem is in definition itself, and terms not being properly defined. Also there is imprecise logic, and a mistaken notion of proving things outside of the realm of mathematics (as ElrondHubbard was commenting on), and other problems as well.

Math is essentially the opposite. Terms are precisely defined, it is formal, and precise logic is used. Practical results/answers are obtained. Compare the lengthy discussion on the previous page to an analysis in mathematics (see the math thread on here, there are plenty of examples to be found of a mathematical argument).

Here is an example of a formal deduction in mathematics, to take an example from that thread:



It may seem like babble to someone not familiar with the symbols, but the symbols do have precise meaning and the steps are logically precise. There is a huge difference between this and metaphysical nonsense.

[IAMRED]

there's different definitions of truth.

Okay, but when we say we know the truth, that has to refer to something definite. For example, truth is propositional. Propositions have objective meaning - more than one person can think them at the same time. So truth is objectively real. It doesn't "depend on who you ask."

i put materialize in quotes because i mean, as in, materialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Why would a Christian try to literally reduce God to something material? That makes no sense, and neither does materialism since truth isn't material.

i know thats what you have been sayin. "the bible is true, it says so right there in the bible." i dont think that's a crazy notion.

That's not what I've been saying. I've been saying that it is a precondition for truth, being, and morality.

[QUOTE]thats not a copy paste of wikipedia thats my own thoughts. it's really wrote more for numberguy than you, im trying to trigger him too by invoking calculus.

Your edited paragraph is straight off of wikipedia dude.

im saying we should embrace "magic" in all its FUNCTIONAL forms, god so long as he functions. nonstandard calculus so long as it functions.

What does it mean for something to function, and why should we embrace such?

[IAMRED]

It's not about understanding. There is just a ****-ton of babble in metaphysical discussion like the above. Part of the problem is in definition itself, and terms not being properly defined. Also there is imprecise logic, and a mistaken notion of proving things outside of the realm of mathematics (as ElrondHubbard was commenting on), and other problems as well.

Math is essentially the opposite. Terms are precisely defined, it is formal and precise logic is used. Practical results/answers are obtained. If you compare the lengthy discussion on the previous page to an analysis in mathematics (see the math thread on here, there are plenty of examples to be found of a mathematical argument).

Here is an example of a formal deduction in mathematics:



It may seem like babble to someone not familiar with the symbols, but the symbols do have precise meaning and the steps are logically precise. There is a huge difference between this an metaphysical nonsense.

This is how I know you have no idea about the history of philosophy. Ironically, in deriding metaphysical categories, you presuppose them. Logical positivism is long dead - the logical positivists themselves performed the autopsy.

By the way, I have no problem defining terms precisely. That indeed should be done. It's babbel to you because you don't have a clearly defined or defensible worldview - your fault, not mine or anyone else's.

[numberguy12]

This is how I know you have no idea about the history of philosophy. Ironically, in deriding metaphysical categories, you presuppose them. Logical positivism is long dead - the logical positivists themselves performed the autopsy.

By the way, I have no problem defining terms precisely. That indeed should be done. It's babbel to you because you don't have a clearly defined or defensible worldview - your fault, not mine or anyone else's.

cool story bro. Glad we have a self-proclaimed "philosopher" on the board to address all this. I stand by my assessment of the discussion on the previous page.

[AltarOfPlagues]

cool story bro. Glad we have a self-proclaimed "philosopher" on the board to address all this. I stand by my assessment of the discussion on the previous page.

well maths is maths and language has a lot more dimension, which leads to semantic problems in discussing abstractions. you can completely ignore these abstractions, but we are stuck with language. language doesnt make the abstractions nonsensical.

if you are not gonna be generous with word-play and semantics, then you are prob not keen to discuss philosophy outside of analytics. that doesnt mean philsophy sucks, that's just your proclivity.

i suspect that mathematical frontiers are not explored within their own bounds. like would you have been a hater after reading infinitesimals "this isnt rigorous"?

scientific inquiry is

1. stuck inside of a shiit load of context. money, popularity, temporality etc etc
2. often uses heuristic methodology to form new ideas?

like do you believe all theoretical physics thats unprovable is stupid? i have seen this argument.

[numberguy12]

well maths is maths and language has a lot more dimension, which leads to semantic problems in discussing abstractions. you can completely ignore these abstractions, but we are stuck with language. language doesnt make the abstractions nonsensical.

if you are not gonna be generous with word-play and semantics, then you are prob not keen to discuss philosophy outside of analytics. that doesnt mean philsophy sucks, that's just your proclivity.

For the record, I do not mean to imply that a valid mathematical deduction (in everyday sense) need be comprised of just symbols and no language. Mathematical proofs are typically written with words (there are even some words in the above). There are different levels of formality.

Also, I do not mean to dismiss philosophy as a whole. I am just critiquing the discussion on the previous page for what it is....and example of the how philosophy can delve into babble. If you look at the writings of philosophers going back to a couple thousand years ago, there is all kinds of nonsense to be found (from on the way the world works, to proofs of God, to metaphysical mumbo jumbo). You wont find this as much in say, the works of Euclid or Archimedes.

[IAMRED]

That hypothetical "could have" is extremely relevant, since you are using the NT texts in and of themselves as some kind of "evidence" for the the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Mere words in a text are not evidence. There is absolutely no bona fide evidence here, considering the NT writers merely could have just been creating story devices to fulfill prophecy (to any rational person, this is much stronger than could, but that's besides the point). Glad that helps clear things up. You wonder the reason someone might construct a story to fulfill OT prophecy in Jesus (hmmm....gee I dunno, the literal creation of a religion, and creating an importance for its founder by matching prophecy to him?).

If you had any literacy regarding history - and it doesn't seem you do, as you are essentially holding to logical positivism (see above), which has been long dead - you would know that the authors of the Bible are generally regarded to have been killed for their beliefs. Can you explain why they would die for a lie, all of them? Are you going to die for your hypothetical?

-A man in the year 1800, writes down a grandiose prophecy: "Lo and behold...hark my words.....there shalt be a person called John who flips 50,000 heads in a row with a fair coin during the coming centuries" (an event which is essentially impossible)

Hypotheticals like this are not useful, because they are not historically grounded.

-This analogy is actually being too fair in a way. Flipping 50,000 heads in a row, while incredibly, incredibly unlikely, is still possible. The same probably cannot be said about virgin birth in humans from a biological standpoint.

Sure it can. The only basis you have for saying it is impossible is inductive reasoning, which cannot rule out the possibility. Same reasoning would apply to flipping heads 50,000 times.

To sum it up: Words written down in a text are not in themselves evidence.

As your posts constantly illustrate.

[IAMRED]

cool story bro. Glad we have a self-proclaimed "philosopher" on the board to address all this. I stand by my assessment of the discussion on the previous page.

Everyone is a philosopher - everyone has a theory of the world. Yours just doesn't line up with the way the world actually is.

[AltarOfPlagues]

well this has been fukin stupid lol

elrond karl popper gets rekt by thomas kuhn btw so settle down

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...kuhn/#DeveScie

[numberguy12]

well maths is maths and language has a lot more dimension, which leads to semantic problems in discussing abstractions. you can completely ignore these abstractions, but we are stuck with language. language doesnt make the abstractions nonsensical.

if you are not gonna be generous with word-play and semantics, then you are prob not keen to discuss philosophy outside of analytics. that doesnt mean philsophy sucks, that's just your proclivity.

i suspect that mathematical frontiers are not explored within their own bounds. like would you have been a hater after reading infinitesimals "this isnt rigorous"?

scientific inquiry is

1. stuck inside of a shiit load of context. money, popularity, temporality etc etc
2. often uses heuristic methodology to form new ideas?

like do you believe all theoretical physics thats unprovable is stupid? i have seen this argument.

To the edit: so we are on the same page, infinitesimals can be precisely defined now (or if you if prefer, not used at all in most formulations of the calculus). If they were not formally defined back in the time of Newton, one cannot argue that the usage of his fluxions didnt provide a great aid in solving problems. Again, real, practical benefits. Look at it as a mere tool if you must.

For theoretical physics.....physics in general still has roots ultimately in the observable and its theories in the end are evaluated with how much they agree with the evidence from experiments. Science is empirical. I would contrast this starkly to various metaphysical investigations/arguments.

[IAMRED]

The TRUTH is that you can't prove anything beyond a formal mathematical statement, and if you want to address objective reality, the only way to do so is not asserting or attempting to prove what it is, but by systematically and gradually discovering what it is not.

You can only demonstrate what something is not by first having a conception of what something is. Same reason why a purely apophatic theology is self-contradictory.

[numberguy12]

If you had any literacy regarding history - and it doesn't seem you do, as you are essentially holding to logical positivism (see above), which has been long dead - you would know that the authors of the Bible are generally regarded to have been killed for their beliefs. Can you explain why they would die for a lie, all of them? Are you going to die for your hypothetical?



Hypotheticals like this are not useful, because they are not historically grounded.



Sure it can. The only basis you have for saying it is impossible is inductive reasoning, which cannot rule out the possibility. Same reasoning would apply to flipping heads 50,000 times.



As your posts constantly illustrate.

I am simply amazed how someone can be this oblivious to the content of a post, and have zero response to it.

Your comment "Hypotheticals like this are not useful, because they are not historically grounded.", shows that Im talking to someone with the mindset of a 6th grader. You completely didnt understand any of that post.

[AltarOfPlagues]

To the edit: so we are on the same page, infinitesimals are can be precisely defined now (or if you if prefer, not used at all in most formulations of the calculus). If they were not formally defined back in the time of Newton, one cannot argue that the usage of his fluxions didnt provide a great aid in solving problems. Again, real, practical benefits. Look at it as a mere tool if you must.

For theoretical physics.....physics in general still has roots ultimately in the observable and its theories in the end are evaluated with how much they agree with the evidence from experiments. Science is empirical. I would contrast this starkly to various metaphysical investigations/arguments.

ok thank you for humoring me see you in church sike

[EdwardTheGreat]

I am simply amazed how someone can be this oblivious to the content of a post, and have zero response to it.
You completely didnt understand any of that post.

And this is exactly how you appear to a religious person that you are debating with...this has and will always be the problem when arguing for or against religion. The 2 sides are coming from completely opposite mindsets that cannot be understood by the other. There is no way for either of them to vocalize it in a way that will make the other side say "holy sh*t, you're right"

[IAMRED]

I am simply amazed how someone can be this oblivious to the content of a post, and have zero response to it.

Your comment "Hypotheticals like this are not useful, because they are not historically grounded.", shows that Im talking to someone with the mindset of a 6th grader. You completely didnt understand any of that post.

Since you need me to break it down: comparing a hypothetical that is not historical, that no one died for, and has no relationship to a foundation for truth, being, and reality to something that does satisfy all those things is not relevantly analogous for it to be useful.

[numberguy12]

And this is exactly how you appear to a religious person that you are debating with...this has and will always be the problem when arguing for or against religion. The 2 sides are coming from completely opposite mindsets that cannot be understood by the other. There is no way for either of them to vocalize it in a way that will make the other side say "holy sh*t, you're right"

No, I'm specifically talking about his response to that particular post. The entire post went over his head (and the point in general, for like the 7th or 8th time). If you notice, I'm not even discussing the issue of

-God exists
vs
-God doesnt exist.

I'm discussing the claim that we should view mere words in a text (the gospels of the NT) as evidence of a particular prophecy being fulfilled. As the posts make clear, they in no way should be considered evidence in and of themselves.

[IAMRED]

I'm discussing the claim that we should view mere words in a text (the gospels of the NT) as evidence of a particular prophecy being fulfilled. As the posts make clear, they in no way should be considered evidence in and of themselves.

Has anyone tried to kill the person who claims to have flipped a coin 50,000 times? No?

Would the person have died for the claim? No?

Is your hypothetical something that actually occurred in recorded history? No?

And yet you still think the analogy is useful?

You gotta laugh.

[numberguy12]

Since you need me to break it down: comparing a hypothetical that is not historical, that no one died for, and has no relationship to a foundation for truth, being, and reality to something that does satisfy all those things is not relevantly analogous for it to be useful.

I simply cannot help this person understand what a post is saying anymore than I could, or dumb it further, or explain how analogies in general work. There is simply no way of getting around this:

The authors of the gospels could have merely constructed story devices to "fulfill" OT prophecy (a rational person would argue probably, but stick with mere could).

Thus, the NT gospels are not evidence in and of themselves of prophecy being fulfilled miraculously or surprisingly.

(even by the way, if they eventually did die for the cause, which is not substantiated of course. Please provide evidence that the author of Matthew died for his gospel and preaching about Jesus. We dont even know who the author of Matthew was lmao).

Again, I have found that I'm arguing with someone with seeming grade-school understanding of things, and I've responded enough to the gibberish. I see from your post history that you randomly pop in after long stretches to write about some theological babble or another, so that tells me more than I need to know.

[AltarOfPlagues]

Has anyone tried to kill the person who claims to have flipped a coin 50,000 times? No?

Would the person have died for the claim? No?

Is your hypothetical something that actually occurred in recorded history? No?

And yet you still think the analogy is useful?

You gotta laugh.

this not a good analogy. people die for tons of wacky stuff. vikings went to war for valhala that dont make valhala more or less real than somethin else.

[EdwardTheGreat]

See? So far, I am the only one who's right LOL

[AltarOfPlagues]

i think we all learned a lot itt and weve made some real progress

[numberguy12]

this not a good analogy. people die for tons of wacky stuff. vikings went to war for valhala that dont make valhala more or less real than somethin else.

And this.

Gee, I guess we should really give credence to some alien UFO trailing comet Hale-Bopp in 1997 since a bunch of people in the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide because of it, etc.

This of course if the author of Matthew, who is anonymous, even died because of it (ehh...evidence?)

If it's giving him so much problem, just add to the analogy that the 1940 author(s) died because of the story written. Doesnt change the outcome lol.

[Adunai]

May I ask one simple question - why would a non-Jew follow Yahweh and/or his son Jesus?

It's actually amusing when people are debating the existence of "god", but it all becomes boring and sad when they make even such a dumb concept dumber by claiming he died on the cross, etc.

And about morality - the only possible objective morality is that of survival. If you choose a rule "thy wife shall be ****ed by your enemy", then your genes quickly leave the genepool, and who will follow that rule? Nobody. Because your cucked genes that allowed you to be a cuck will no longer be around.

a+b=c. But if a=∅, the equation loses its meaning. If an actor ceases to exist, the logic breaks down.

The laws of physics, chemistry and biology allow you to have a certain percentage of your kids be molested by priests - but up to a point. The only rules are those of Nature, and Nature lives. Too bad man is such a weird creature, he can use his mind to commit suicide by believing in the supernatural.

[Tharsos]

In other words, some beliefs are able to be known apart from verification from something else. I would indeed include knowledge of God and His revelation in this category - not arbitrarily, but because, like logic or truth, they are necessary beliefs in order to account for facets of reality I mentioned earlier: truth itself, being, and morality. Implicitly, we know that we are sinners. We know we have done things which are objectively wrong. Our consciences condemn us. It's just a matter of what we do with that implicit knowledge - do we suppress it, or do we acknowledge the reality for what it is and seek the Savior we need in Jesus Christ? Arguing against this need ironically only serves to indirectly illustrate it.

This just sounds like god of the gaps for human behavior, and the usual refutation applies. But let's assume for the sake of argument that we somehow learn there are observable elements of our world or the human experience that science can never figure out. What makes the Christian God the most likely explanation for these unknowns? Even if there's a creator we have no reason to assume the creator is omnipotent to the point of defying logic or omnibenevolent despite sentencing most of humanity to eternal damnation. The only way it makes sense is if you accept a text as truth that has been repeatedly shown to be flawed if taken literally and which has been repeatedly shown to be unreliably interpretable.

The big problem with presuppositionalism, which seems to be where you're coming from, is you end up presupposing a bunch of unnecessary things and you create a system from which nearly any reality can be derived. It is the most severe violation of ontological parsimony imaginable.

[Johnez]

May I ask one simple question - why would a non-Jew follow Yahweh and/or his son Jesus?

It's actually amusing when people are debating the existence of "god", but it all becomes boring and sad when they make even such a dumb concept dumber by claiming he died on the cross, etc.

And about morality - the only possible objective morality is that of survival. If you choose a rule "thy wife shall be ****ed by your enemy", then your genes quickly leave the genepool, and who will follow that rule? Nobody. Because your cucked genes that allowed you to be a cuck will no longer be around.

a+b=c. But if a=∅, the equation loses its meaning. If an actor ceases to exist, the logic breaks down.

The laws of physics, chemistry and biology allow you to have a certain percentage of your kids be molested by priests - but up to a point. The only rules are those of Nature, and Nature lives. Too bad man is such a weird creature, he can use his mind to commit suicide by believing in the supernatural.

You know, there has been debate on whether in fact he died on a cross. Some argue that he died on a simple stake. So many iconic symbols and beliefs of Christianity are actually very much in question. The Christmas tree, the Easter egg, and yeah even the cross have possible pagan roots. I mean, hell if you look at the good book itself, the "word of God," even that is in dispute. You know there are several versions? Not just translations, I'm talking entire books either left out or added in depending on the sect. The Nicean council is what determined the makeup of one version, a group of men. How are we to know they were guided by God? Believers are placing a lot of faith in MEN over the years. The Bible, the cross, the holidays-so many things affected by the whims of certain men in power. It should be a sign that the words and traditions aren't essential. That the faith in God so many claim is actually faith in so many men getting it "right." Atheists supposedly don't have morals. Just lol. Do you even know what your morals are based off of? If they come from a book and are adhered to simply to get into heaven and avoid hell-are you really virtuous and moral? Hell, I would argue an atheist following a Christian path without believing in God is even MORE moral than any Christian. Doing good for the sake of it.

You make a good point in how people reduce God, he's reduced every time anybody assigns a motive or explains what they think of him-which should give hint that nothing written or said should be taken of value, if there is a god.

[Austanian]

consider Agnosticism not Atheism.

Why?

Just because I don't know 100% something is True or False doesn't mean that I don't apply my internal BS meter to it.

"I was walking down the street last night and picked up a winning million dollar lotto ticket from the gutter."

Is it technically possible I did? Sure. Am I probably full of chit? Yep.

[ElrondHubbard]

uh yea none of us are philosophers, we are just miscers bro lol.

you are welcome to post up some karl popper humeanism, there's no need to abig butt hole about it lol.

"huuurrr durrr by the way none of the miscers on the r/p subforum of a bodybuilding website are creating new inroads in the field of philosophical inquiry"

fukkin jerk dude lol



do you like it when people are this dismissive about math?

"i dont understand it so it's not important"

So you admit that you don't really know what you're talking about, but that's not going to stop you from insisting that you're right!


Sounds legit.

[ElrondHubbard]

You can only demonstrate what something is not by first having a conception of what something is. Same reason why a purely apophatic theology is self-contradictory.

You can have a conception of what you THINK it is, not necessarily what it is. You use that conception to create a predictive hypothesis, and then you test it.

And then you realize you were wrong.

So no, you didn't have the conception of what it was after all. You only had a MISconception.