Oh yeah...I forgot

[toledo_jesus]

1. Essential. Water or Blood or Desire...whatever.
2. I don't understand how it exists.
3. Abortion is murder and I will not support murderers.
4. Judaism is not a widespread religion. They'll be around for awhile though. Unless they all go Reformed.
5. I would like to see social justice as a goal of politics. Sometimes that means liberal, sometimes conservative.
6. I don't subject myself to relativism, however in an attempt to understand even my own religion it is beneficial to go to the very limit of reason, to that precipice where faith takes over. so I go that far when I try to understand new things.
7. Atheist friend.
8. Abortion hating liberal. The other issues do not rise to the same level.
9. Malcolm X. He grew a beard.
10. boycott F. 9/11, but not for political reasons. Moore has perfected the crockumentary, and I don't enjoy those.
11. Which would I choose to join? Black Panthers wouldn't have me...
12. Get out of school, start working, get married, enjoy my life.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 10 2005, 04:21 PM'] Incorrect. I require no faith in my beliefs. I don't need to explain why we are here or the origins of the universe to make my life feel complete or to make any sense. I just accept its a mystery that most likely will never have an answer. I could easily say that the Universe has always existed , such as you would say god has always existed. If god could have always existed why not the universe? The big bang is just a hypothesis on the origins of the universe, I am confident many more will be proposed as time moves on. [/quote]
One would expect, given your signature, that you would put forth a rational argument.

It seems to me that you offer two contradictory positions. First, you say "Its a mystery that most likely will never have an answer." Then you say that you "could easily say that the Universe has always existed."

I will ignore, for now, the conflicting signals of your post, and seperate the one from the other, dealing with them each in turn.

First, let us ignore your "universe always existed" argument and assume that you are arguing simply that it is a mystery that we cannot understand. Such an argument bears no logical weight. First, by taking up such a stance, you would have to make the pressuposition that there is a limit to how much of the physical universe we can understand. This is a very, very large pressuposition and, taken to its ultimate conclusion, calls into question the very nature of science. Why do you find it necessary to take such a step? Furthermore, such a mystery-postion is simply a semantical manner of fence-sitting. While it may sometimes be wise to hold out one's opinion on a matter, doing so makes it impossible to argue contra to either of the two existant sides of the argument. So, your final "out" with this argument is that the mystery-position is [i]not[/i] an ambiguous position, but rather, is a definitive one. However, if this is your argument, it is an amazingly weak one, considering you do not put forward any points that would make it a more plausible position than that of those who believe in God, or who believe in no God at all.

Now, the first possible argument in your self-conflicting post having been dealt with, let us turn to the argument that holds that the universe has always existed, and let us pretend that this is your sole argument. I shall explain the error of this position by manner of geometric proof.

Premise 1.) Either the universe is a causally based system or it is not.

Premise 2.) In order for a conclusion to be legitimately maintained, that conclusion must be backed by reason.

Assumption 1.) Let us assume that the universe has always existed.

Point 1.) If the universe has always existed, that is, if the situation described in the previous post (either one or two singularities existing which comprise all matter) have always existed, then that singularity (or those two singularities) would have no cause.

Point 2.) If these singularities have no cause, then we understand that the Universe is not causally based. (This is seen through Premise 1 and Point 1)

Point 3.) If one is to legitimately maintain the conclusion that the universe is not causally based, then that conclusion must be backed by reason. (This is seen through Premise 2)

Observation: All that I know, all that I see, and even the manner in which I think (using reason) lead me to believe that things are causally connected. Moreover, there is nothing that would lead me to reasonably maintain that causal-connection is non-existent. In fact, it is impossible for me to reasonably put forward a non-causal construct of the universe, because the very act of reason and logic is a causally based.

Conclusion: One cannot legitimately maintain the conclusion that the universe is causally based. (This is seen through Point 3 and the Observation).



So such an argument is untenable. Thus, your second argument, just as your first, fails. Tacking on to all of this the fact that you leave it ambiguous as to which of the two is actually your argument, I must say that your previous post did nothing to help your position.


- Jeff

[Winchester]

Good answer. I would say N holds the only tenable position for an atheist (will to power.)

You must lean toward a sort of stoicism, then, which is kind of a bastardized atheism.

[AtheistAlex]

Thanks, though I wasn't going for brownie points...

*holds stomach* Awww...brownies...not again.

Edited February 15, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[Winchester]

Good. Brownie points mean so little in my cuthroat world of mockery and non sequiter.

Why JFK?

[AtheistAlex]

My second favorite President, behind Abraham Lincoln.

Kennedy was a Catholic, at least that's what the history books say.

Who's your favorite president?

Edited February 17, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[Winchester]

Reagan, or maybe Bush senior. Of course, I like Hamilton, too. Lincoln was kind of a war monger.
JFK had some good ideas, but did great harm with his position regarding church and state.
Garfield was nice.

So, as an atheist, what form of morality does function? I'm working on the assumption you follow a sort of pragmatism in your philosophy, since the concept of good and evil without an eternal truth doesn't really work.

[AtheistAlex]

Atheists are not a sole congregation, rather a mishmash of people who have decided that they cannot provide a reason for a belief in a God or gods. That being said, every atheist's moral set may be different from one another.

Hm. Truthfully, I hadn't studied philosophy much yet, but after looking at 'pragmatism', I have to say it had some characteristics I hold dear. To hold something as true, one must at the very least have a logical process behind it. Basically, when I think about moral decisions, I ask myself, "Why am I doing this? What does it contribute?" I think people may not be here for some specific reason, but the greatest moral good comes from doing the greatest good for people. That's where it degenerates, though. What is the greatest good?

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 18 2005, 06:25 PM'] Reagan, or maybe Bush senior. Of course, I like Hamilton, too. Lincoln was kind of a war monger.
JFK had some good ideas, but did great harm with his position regarding church and state.
Garfield was nice.

So, as an atheist, what form of morality does function? I'm working on the assumption you follow a sort of pragmatism in your philosophy, since the concept of good and evil without an eternal truth doesn't really work. [/quote]
President Hamilton?

[AtheistAlex]

Do you mean President Harrison?

[Winchester]

Atheist,
What is good?


Are there any absolutes?

How small can a culture be? Is a sociopath a culture of one? A subculture? Should cultures be protected or is it survival of the fittest?

[AtheistAlex]

Those are all good questions. Questions I haven't got good, juicy answers for yet. You can call me Alex, that's a little more polite.

We'll see about those answers,

Alex

[jasJis]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 19 2005, 05:13 AM'] Those are all good questions. Questions I haven't got good, juicy answers for yet. You can call me Alex, that's a little more polite.

We'll see about those answers,

Alex [/quote]
Very good and intellectually honest answer, Alex.

It is with Reason and Logic that humanity can discern the likelihood that God exists. You can not prove that God doesn't exist, any more than I can prove that God does exist. But, we can use logic and reason and conclude that it is more likely that God does exist, and that accepting that theory is inherently more logical and reasonable.

[AtheistAlex]

Please explain.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 19 2005, 05:13 AM'] Those are all good questions. Questions I haven't got good, juicy answers for yet. You can call me Alex, that's a little more polite.

We'll see about those answers,

Alex [/quote]
Why is calling you "Atheist" impolite? It is, after all, the first part of your chosen name. And I assume you are not ashamed of being an Atheist? And there are probably more Alexes on this site than atheists, so it is more precise.

And one of my favorite presidents is Calvin Coolidge. In fact Hoover, Harding and Coolidge are three of the most underrated presidents in history, presiding over unprecedented economic growth, scientific innovation and peace.
And JFK is one of the most overrated presidents in history.
[url="http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=82031"]http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=82031[/url]