What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[Willamena]

You got it! Of course, this isn't true in every case, which is why I wanted to stay with my original illustration. Having a non-malignant mole removed wouldn't be the same. The decision wouldn't be "forced."

I'm sorry; this makes no sense to me.

I did find William James' argument and am reading through it. Perhaps I can make sense of it then.

What about those of us who made no choice and are not atheist: do we fit in anywhere?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

OK, and what do you think the consequences are for choosing any of the three options?

I'm assuming you're referring to the cancer options. I chose option 1. I can only hope it's the last time I have to choose.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I'm sorry; this makes no sense to me.

I did find William James' argument and am reading through it. Perhaps I can make sense of it then.

What about those of us who made no choice and are not atheist: do we fit in anywhere?

To not choose is to effectively decide with the atheist: the consequences, in your mind, aren't severe enough to warrent placing your bet with the theist.

Don't misconstrue this to mean I doubt the sincerity of your search for answers. But placing a bet one way or the other, even a little, will have an effect on the direction of your investigations

 

[Willamena]

To not choose is to effectively decide with the atheist: the consequences, in your mind, aren't severe enough to place your bet with the theist.

Don't misconstrue this to mean I doubt the sincerity of your search for answers. But placing a bet one way or the other, even a little, will have an effect on the direction of your investigations

I think I understand where you're coming from, but the "outcome" of a decision is not the same thing as "consequences". A decision need not involve consequences at all.

My "no choice" was a revelation, so why do I have side (excuse me, be sided with) with the atheists?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think I understand where you're coming from, but the "outcome" of a decision is not the same thing as "consequences". A decision need not involve consequences at all.

My "no choice" was a revelation, so why do I have side (excuse me, be sided with) with the atheists?

Two words: foundationalism and relationship.

Edit:
If it is true that we attain divine union by progressive reciprocal spiritual communion, then it is also true that neither atheism or agnosticism have the wherewithal to enter into such a communion.

Second edit: Such a relationship can exist only between personalities.

 

[Willamena]

Two words: foundationalism and relationship.

Edit:
If it is true that we attain divine union by progressive reciprocal spiritual communion, then it is also true that neither atheism or agnosticism have the wherewithal to enter into such a communion.

Second edit: Such a relationship can exist only between personalities.

What does that have to do with making a choice?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What does that have to do with making a choice?

You do or you don't. Not choosing is effectively choosing (with atheism, in this case).

 

[UnTheist]

What are your thoughts on Nihilism, RS?

Just a random question

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What are your thoughts on Nihilism, RS?

Just a random question

I understand it as the understanding that the only point in life is what we make for ourselves. I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning.

 

[UnTheist]

I understand it as the understanding that the only point in life is what we make for ourselves. I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning.

What is an "ultimate" meaning, and why is that preferable to not having one?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

quote=UnTheist;1174385]What is an "ultimate" meaning, and why is that preferable to not having one?[/quote]
The difference is qualitative.

A nihilist necessarily lives in his own world, isolated from the rest of the universe. It’s selfish and solipsistic. In my religion, I say, “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity.” I am settled in my goals and direction.

 

[Yerda]

But atheism isn't something a person "lives their life by," which makes your statements both true, false and nonsensical (well done! very Discordian).

I understand that atheism is not a guide to living, and perhaps I'm guilty of the same errors I've been pointing out in other people's posts.

There's a lot of literature expressing the importance of atheism. Or so it seems to me. Many of our atheist members here are proud and somewhat evangelical. I can't help feeling that it's pretty uninteresting and unimportant to who, and how we are. Maybe in North America people have a different view because of the ingrained religious culture.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I understand that atheism is not a guide to living, and perhaps I'm guilty of the same errors I've been pointing out in other people's posts.

There's a lot of literature expressing the importance of atheism. Or so it seems to me. Many of our atheist members here are proud and somewhat evangelical. I can't help feeling that it's pretty uninteresting and unimportant to who, and how we are. Maybe in North America people have a different view because of the ingrained religious culture.

I have to agree. It goes to the quality of life-experience; not who and what we are.

 

[GadFly]

I am asking you a straightforward question. Are you implying that simply disagreeing with your position would automatically make someone an "unfair judge"?

If you are so implying, then you are committing the fallacy of "Poisoning the Well". You are effectively saying (before a debate begins) that anyone that does not agree with you is wrong.

That, my friend, is how logic works. It has a set of rules (universally recognized) that are not open to personal interpretation. If both parties agree to the premises, then both present their arguments for their position, without committing fallacies. At the end of the debate, a third party judges which side presented the strongest evidence for their position. Needless to say, pointing out the fallacies committed by the opposition is part of the debating process.

Oh - and there is no such thing as "atheist logic". A person either adheres to the rules of logic or they don't.

I am asking you a straightforward question. Are you implying that simply disagreeing with your position would automatically make someone an "unfair judge"?

No. Don't be silly. You did not think that was what I was implying. Also, why have you attacked me with such colloquial language? Don't you agree that such language goes against the imaginary image of the Voice of Reason that you are trying to display? It is as if you will not be satisfied unless you make me an enemy. Do you need somebody to fight back and to punish you? I would rather not do that. I will go ahead and respond to the rest of this post but please make your next response directed to my arguments.

I am not implying, so I did not poison any body's well. I accept the universal and self evident rules about logic. That has never been the problem but rather the atheist and agnostic will not abide by these rules. They generally attempt to insert a few extra rules of their own invention making their logic atheistic in design. That my friend is not how logic is supposed to work.

Both parties do need to agree to the premises of logic but if one party denies universal and self evident premises do not exist than no debate is rationally possible. That my friend is the sad fact about atheist in any debate if one depends on logic to determine the outcome of a debate. We don't know about agnostics unless you tell us the premises upon which your world system depends and scenes you are here to debate, please take time to tell us what your premises are.

Be real here now. On the RF there is no third party. Fouls are called like in a pickup game of basketball. The fairness of the game depends on the ethics of the players to call their own fouls. I find more ethics on basketball floor than in debates on this forum but together we can change that.

Now, about atheistic logic. It does exist. It falls under the category of operationally defined terminology. It also falls well within the universally accepted rules of debate except to use it is an automatic fallacy in the use of logic. It is poor sportsmanship to use atheistic logic. That is the reason atheist hate the term so badly. It always makes them look like they take unfair advantage of the rules of universal truth.That my friend is how logic is suppose to work.
GadFly

 

[Magic Man]

I'm assuming you're referring to the cancer options. I chose option 1. I can only hope it's the last time I have to choose.

Enough with the cancer. We get it, you have or had cancer. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that, but it's irrelevant. My question was what are the consequences, as you see them, of choosing atheism, agnosticism and theism? If I choose atheism, what are the consequences you speak of? IfI choose theism, what are the consequences for me? If I choose agnosticism, what are the consequences? Is that clear enough?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Enough with the cancer. We get it you have or had cancer. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that, but it's irrelevant. My question was what are the consequences, as you see them, of choosing atheism, agnosticism and theism? If I choose atheism, what are the consequences you speak of? IfI choose theism, what are the consequences for me? If I choose agnosticism, what are the consequences? Is that clear enough?

You didn't make yourself clear. For your answer, see my previous post.

 

[Willamena]

You do or you don't. Not choosing is effectively choosing (with atheism, in this case).

What does that have to do with foundationalism and relationship?

 

[Willamena]

There's a lot of literature expressing the importance of atheism. Or so it seems to me.

There is also a lot of cookbooks expessing the importance of garlic, but I don't buy that either.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

hehe. I thought I made it simple enough even for you. Guess I was wrong. That where the bet comes in and what it's all about. :sarcastic

Odd that. I can't possibly make it any simpler for you. And yes, you were wrong (just not on whether I could follow your thought process). Good to see you face it.
As for Pascal's wager, I have to ask - are you a believer solely because you think the wager is the smart move?

Obviously you don't. Vegas is not a forced decision; cancer and the ponies are.

Like mball, I wish you had not suffered from cancer. I'll also echo his request that we leave cancer out of the thread from this point. I've broken 16 bones in my life, lost my father in a senseless war, and my mother to a brain tumor. Let's both try to talk around each of those items, so that we can move forward with the issues at hand.

 

[UnTheist]

There is also a lot of cookbooks expessing the importance of garlic, but I don't buy that either.

But garlic is important.