Atheism: The Stars Are On Our Side

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charles_Darwin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Perhaps the actual words to paper but the thought and communication from the outside permeates the box material.
Click to expand...
How do you know that if the words were written by people in the box? Why differentiate between the person proclaiming there is light outside the box and the person who claims there are ponies outside the box?
 
liquidpele said:
How do you know that if the words were written by people in the box? Why differentiate between the person proclaiming there is light outside the box and the person who claims there are ponies outside the box?
Click to expand...
Authority.
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps the actual words to paper but the thought and communication from the outside permeates the box material.
Click to expand...
Oh, I can agree.

The reason that I can is that those inside the box making such proclamations are actually, but not obviously being very logical and rational (perhaps not always perfectly so).

It is actually logic that allows one to truly deduce what is outside the box without having to leave it or directly see it. This is how every mind really functions. A mind does not directly see anything of what is outside its skull. It deduces.

But just because some deduce with great error does not rationally equate to everyone must deduce in mere error.
 
James_S_Saint said:
Oh, I can agree.

The reason that I can is that those inside the box making such proclamations are actually, but not obviously being very logical and rational (perhaps not always perfectly so).

It is actually logic that allows one to truly deduce what is outside the box without having to leave it or directly see it. This is how every mind really functions. A mind does not directly see anything of what is outside its skull. It deduces.

But just because some deduce with great error does not rationally equate to everyone must deduce in mere error.
Click to expand...
liquid - you agree?
 
James_S_Saint said:
Oh, I can agree.

The reason that I can is that those inside the box making such proclamations are actually, but not obviously being very logical and rational (perhaps not always perfectly so).

It is actually logic that allows one to truly deduce what is outside the box without having to leave it or directly see it. This is how every mind really functions. A mind does not directly see anything of what is outside its skull. It deduces.

But just because some deduce with great error does not rationally equate to everyone must deduce in mere error.
Click to expand...
The act of attempting to deduce what is beyond the box is not itself the issue, the issue is how do you determine what deduction is correct. Is the person proclaiming there is light right, or the person proclaiming there are pink ponies? To someone in the box, either might be just as reasonable as they would have no prior knowledge to ascertain the standards of what should be reasonable.
 
MindOverMatter said:
I want you to show me why you think that naturalist “principles” represents what the world would be like if God didn’t exist. How did you get that information? You are assuming that the world would appear in particular fashion if God had created it, as if to say that if there was a God there would not be a “natural order” that functions according to various principles, evolving over a period of time. This is a straw-man of what it means for God to create something.You are implying that physical events necessitates the idea that natural events explains “existence” in its entirety. You haven’t shown me how that can be the case or how you have come to knowledge of it.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what the world would look like if God did exist compared to God not existing - what I mean is that it looks like he doesn’t. Upon investigating the natural world, I can find no empirical evidence that a deity created it.
 
James_S_Saint said:
aren’t you presuming a lot about what other people know??

You appear to think that if the preachers for Socialist Secularism haven’t declared that Science has decided on something, then no one knows.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not. For knowledge is not the same as belief.
 
MindOverMatter said:
But, by the fact that your an atheist, are you not assuming that everything came from physical principles; that the universe came from physics? Am i not correct? If so, you might want to explain how thats possible logically speaking.
Click to expand...
Err no??? The fact i am an atheist tells you one thing AND ONE THING ONLY… I lack any theistic beliefs. It amazes me how many people don’t even understand what the word atheist means.
 
That was one of the most laughable atheist videos I have ever seen. Only the most ignorant of religion could not see the straw man it creates, in multiple locations. Now us believers are supposed to be surprised that God created a world that is rational? And somehow this is a proof He doesn’t exist? LOL
 
He also presumes many things throughout. But what offends me most is his use of psychological manipulations to paint the evil “bad” person as the religious one and the good person as the righteously angry person.

It is all politics.
 
Originally Posted by James S Saint
My stand was that using these kind of arguments is meaningless toward either side. Importance is obviously relative to the person. So even if he is the only human in all existence, how important he is wouldn’t change from the idea of him being only one out of trillions of humans and species.
Click to expand...
Is importance relative only to the individual? Or is it ever relative to everyone?
 
liquidpele said:
Code: 
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                    
             *Is importance  relative only to the individual? Or is it ever relative to everyone?*
Both. 🙂
Click to expand...
:confused: If importance is relative **only **to the individual how is it also relative to everyone?
 
tonyrey said:
Is importance relative only to the individual? Or is it ever relative to everyone?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what “relative to everyone” actually means other than to say that it is important to each individual within the set of “everyone”.

“Everyone” is not a rational entity (especially these days). Rationality is the subject of relevance and the “rationed” path to accomplish what is relevant (important).

“Both” would seem an acceptable answer although not entirely coherent.
 
James_S_Saint said:
Originally Posted by tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Is importance relative only to the individual? Or is it ever relative to everyone?
I don’t know what “relative to everyone” actually means other than to say that it is important to each individual within the set of “everyone”.
“Everyone” is not a rational entity (especially these days). Rationality is the subject of relevance and the “rationed” path to accomplish what is relevant (important).
“Both” would seem an acceptable answer although not entirely coherent.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Your original statement:
Originally Posted by James S Saint forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If there are 10^10000 things floating around me that are not important, what are the odds of me being important?

Which suggests that you are unimportant. To which I asked:
So your main criterion of importance is frequency of occurrence?
Click to expand...
To which you replied:
My stand was that using these kind of arguments is meaningless toward either side.
Importance is obviously relative to the person. So even if he is the only human in all existence, how important he is wouldn’t change from the idea of him being only one out of trillions of humans and species.
Click to expand...
Which suggests that you are important!
 
tonyrey said:
Which suggests that you are important!
Click to expand...
Always to yourself, but regardless of how many other people or things are around.

Your surroundings have nothing to do with your importance to yourself. Thus the arguments that claim that because you are such a very small member of the entire universe, you are unimportant, actually are non-sequetor and irrelevant to “importance”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top