What drives exJWs to atheism? (page 10)

ros

Jan, you're wrong.

There are lots of analyses out there about reductio ad absurdam, but here's one of the more simple:

http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/cumphi1/Ontological%20Argument.html

Sunchild

Hello again, Jan. And also again, you're trying to find hidden meanings where there really are none.

So, essentially, what you decided to tell the world, was that there exists atheists who are arrogant.

No, I said that some atheists hold the same kind of obnoxious, pig-headed, "Nobody's got the truth but us" kind of arrogance that Xtian Fundies do. In other words, from what I've seen, it's just opposite sides of the same coin. I thought I'd made it plain as day (if in somewhat more delicate terms), but for some odd reason, you want to find something else, and I really don't know what you're looking for. What more do you want me to say? Could you at least throw me a clue?

And you still haven't answered my question. What, exactly, are you trying to prove?

*Rochelle, curious.

---------
"Most men complacently accept 'knowledge' as 'truth'. They are sheep, ruled by fear."
-- Sydney Losstarot, "Vagrant Story."

JanH

Ros,

Jan, you're wrong.
There are lots of analyses out there about reductio ad absurdam, but here's one of the more simple:
http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/cumphi1/Ontological%20Argument.html

LOL. What exactly are you trying to prove with this example? What do you think you are demonstrating?

The ontological argument fails for a number of reasons. In this particular example, I will argue that # 3 has no meaning, except serving to set up for a play with words around "greater". It also tries to produce knowledge from nothing, e.g. # 4. If God does not exist, God is almost certainly impossible. The argument mixes up what we believe with what is really the case, as if a new reality can pop into existence from fiat because a new idea enters someone's head.

You again do not understand what you are talking about. The argument is valid, but premises do not hold, so it is unsound.

(PS: Try to save people's time by making sure url references do not start at the beginning of a new line. Thank you!)

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

larc

Hi Sunchild,

I have not read every word of this thread, nor all of the dialogue between you and JanH. I do remember you bringing up this subject before, and your reference to the term "spiritual".
Can there be a reconciliation between the scientific, rational, and even atheist position and the concept of spirituality? I think it depends on how you define spirituality. If if involves spirits, invisible creatures, atheists would say no. If you define spirituality as your core value system in combination with inner sometimes unconscious, motives and fears along with your ability to tap into this "spirituality", then atheists would be more likely accept this concept of spirituality.

This is how I see it, anyway.

ros

JanH:

Pointing out the absurdity of these logical arguments (which by the way is not MINE) only illustrates my point!
Yoohoo, anyone in there?
Its my contention that this form of logic CANNOT be employed to prove OR DISPROVE God. Its too bad you can't see the same irrationale using it to prove your point. I AGREE YOU CAN'T USE IT TO PROVE GOD!
They probably don't call it absurdia for nothing.

(PS: Try to save people's time by making sure url references do not start at the beginning of a new line. Thank you!)

Okay, but why? What's the problem with starting a new line?

Scorpion

ros,

The reason JanH mentioned not starting a new line is because if you do a person has to type the URL in instead of just clicking on it. For example: http://www.freeminds.org

http://www.freeminds.org

The board is set up so all you have to do is type a word or object before the link and all you have to do is click on it.

ros

Hey, thanks, Scorpian.
I'm still learning the features of this board.

ros

JanH:
I've thought of an example that will hopefully demonstrate to you that you do not understand reductio ad absurdum, even for what it can prove. You problem is that you are trying to say that if two of the premises conflict then the initial assertion cannot be true. Wrong. One or more of the premises have to conflict with the initial assertion. Example:

1. Dogs exist.
2. All dogs are brown.
3. Fido is a dog.
4. Fido is black.
======================
Conclusion: Either All dogs are not brown or Fido is not a dog. The a conflict between 2 and 4 do not conclude 1 is false.
Now if a known premise is stated that all dogs have died of rabis, THEN you have a premise that conflicts with the initial assertion and disproves it. There was no such premise in your example of "God exists."

If you can't see that, I give up and let the readers judge for themselves.

ianao

GOOD GRACIOUS!!!

Is this what this religion does to you!? Good googley moogley!

Sunchild

Larc,

Can there be a reconciliation between the scientific, rational, and even atheist position and the concept of spirituality? I think it depends on how you define spirituality. If if involves spirits, invisible creatures, atheists would say no. If you define spirituality as your core value system in combination with inner sometimes unconscious, motives and fears along with your ability to tap into this "spirituality", then atheists would be more likely accept this concept of spirituality.

From what I've seen, it's not that simple. I acutally started a thread once called "Defining Spirituality." It was a completely open-ended question, and I encouraged people to post their personal definitions, not what other people or sources told them. In my own definition, I made it clear that I thought of spirituality as something you must find within yourself, not in books, not in gurus, not in some external thing you might name "God."

As far as I recall, only one atheist responded. S/he made it clear that in his (or her) mind, spirituality was a concept inextricably linked with the God he no longer believed in, and that it had no place in his life. Even when given the opportunity to state his beliefs free of rules, constraints, or any expectations save that it must be his own personal view, not someone else's, he still linked it to "God," as in some mean old man in the sky. For me, that's a strange way of seeing things, although I do understand how it could happen after being spiritually raped by the Borg. But it doesn't have to be that way if you don't want it to. And not everyone who wanders in here wants it to.

The reason I post stuff like this is to show any lurkers, questioners, etc., who might be feeling spiritually vulnerable right now that fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Atheism aren't the only options, and that they don't have to feel bullied or pressured into accepting either path if it isn't right for them. Having a spiritual life/beliefs doesn't mean that you have to surrender your brain or that others have the right to belittle you for it, and even being an atheist doesn't mean you have to surrender your spiritual life. There's plenty of room for variety and seeking one's own truth, and no one should be denied that chance by people who want to force their choices on others as the only viable option.

I should probably post a mini-thesis on my beliefs about God/dess and spirituality just to clear up where I'm coming from. <g> I'll bet that even then, though, someone will find something there to argue with.

Take care,

*Rochelle.

---------
"Most men complacently accept 'knowledge' as 'truth'. They are sheep, ruled by fear."
-- Sydney Losstarot, "Vagrant Story."

What drives exJWs to atheism?

Share this