Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Da Vinci Code, 2
Topic Started: May 21 2006, 09:34 AM (653 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"I don't know how it would be logical to simply reject God."

Most believers would argue belief is not logical. Some believers have tried to argue belif logically and failed.

An agnostic might argue that because not enough is known it is impossible to logically reject or accept God.

An atheist might argue that acceptance and rejection are equally illogical because the very concept of God makes no sense.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Huntsville, AL
I think we're saying the same thing while sitting on different sides of the fence. You might say that it's illogical to accept God. I would say that it's illogical, to me, to reject God. Maybe your last sentence says as much.

But I think you miss my point. Rejecting God seems very often the result of the rejection of religion, as has been said before, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Henry David Thoreau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
Stoney
May 22 2006, 07:03 AM
I don't know how it would be logical to simply reject God.

But you reject endless incarnations of god and settle on only one out of mankind's millions.

Is that logical?

Since there is no evidence ANY of them exist, on what logical basis can you pick out just one?

And do you think your selection of which god to accept would have been the same had you been born in India or or China?

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Huntsville, AL
ngc1514
May 22 2006, 08:47 AM
Stoney
May 22 2006, 07:03 AM
I don't know how it would be logical to simply reject God. 

But you reject endless incarnations of god and settle on only one out of mankind's millions.

Is that logical?

Since there is no evidence ANY of them exist, on what logical basis can you pick out just one?

And do you think your selection of which god to accept would have been the same had you been born in India or or China?

I would certainly agree that envirnment has much to do with the way we view the world. However, I don't see that I've said and certainly don't know who or what incarnation God takes, nor have I rejected any incarnations that exist.

The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Henry David Thoreau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
Stoney
May 22 2006, 10:00 AM
"... nor have I rejected any incarnations that exist."


CTHULHU Lives!

Please disprove at your leisure.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Huntsville, AL
I can't disprove "CTHULHU Lives!"

Quote:
 
I don't see that I've said and certainly don't know who or what incarnation God takes, nor have I rejected any incarnations that exist.


And since I can neither prove or disprove it, I would not be able to prove what name or form CTHULHU might take.

But again, I don't see that as the point.
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Henry David Thoreau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Stoney
May 22 2006, 06:42 AM
I think we're saying the same thing while sitting on different sides of the fence. You might say that it's illogical to accept God. I would say that it's illogical, to me, to reject God. Maybe your last sentence says as much.

But I think you miss my point. Rejecting God seems very often the result of the rejection of religion, as has been said before, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As for rejecting god deriving from rejecting religion, I think some do. There are those who are very anti-Christian for the sins (they perceive) Christianity has committed.

But, yes, there are those who reject religion without rejecting god.

And there are those who reject religion without rejecting god because that religion has none, Buddhism for example. Taoism. Others.

There are those, too, who reject and hate god because of some clamity befallen unto them. These are often used mistakenly as examples of atheists.


But, no, I think my last sentence, "An atheist might argue that acceptance and rejection are equally illogical because the very concept of God makes no sense", says the question of accepting or rejecting god is meaningless and irrelevant.

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Huntsville, AL
But what you say is "...acceptance and rejection are equally illogical..." Then you say that the concept of God "...makes no sense." I take the latter as pure opinion that I disagree with.
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Henry David Thoreau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
But, no, I think my last sentence, "An atheist might argue that acceptance and rejection are equally illogical because the very concept of God makes no sense", says the question of accepting or rejecting god is meaningless and irrelevant.


I don't find many atheists that argue from such a neutral position, myself.
most argue that acceptance is illogical, because:
irrelevance (to them personally) or no concrete proof, or contradictory beliefs
rejection, then, is the logical response.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Stoney
May 22 2006, 01:07 PM
But what you say is "...acceptance and rejection are equally illogical..."  Then you say that the concept of God "...makes no sense."  I take the latter as pure opinion that I disagree with.

The sentences are about two wholly different things, one about god, the other about the concept. I think this is something believers and nonbelievers have trouble with, especially Christians who the consider that the word is god, iow, who do not distinguish sense and referent.

You, and Jane, are basically arguing Saint Anselm of Canterbury's proof of god, also called the ontological argument. It's been shown fallacious.

Everyone has opinions, Stoney, to say mine is one, is not an argument about anything.



Jane "I don't find many..."

Seek and ye shall find.

(You also say science says things it does not.)
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Huntsville, AL
Quote:
 
Everyone has opinions, Stoney, to say mine is one, is not an argument about anything.


And my post was an opinion, not an attempt to prove anything, but an attempt to show that many who reject God, maybe with little thought that their reason is religion, not God.

However, with a referent, I agree that concluding there is or is not a God does not involve logic, are equally illogical.




The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Henry David Thoreau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, an 11th century Benedictine monk, a contemporary of St. Anselm, provided the earliest know criticism of the ontological argument. It helps I think explain what I mean by the concept of god, the difference beteen sense and referent.

It goes like this: Think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. Doesn't exist, you say? Then you are not thinking of the greatest conceivable island with all desirable properties. Since you can conceive of this greatest or most perfect island, then it must exist.

This argument seems absurd. But it is no more so than Anselm's ontological argument for god.

(a source)
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Huntsville, AL
I remember the argument vaguely from my college days. If I came across as trying to argue to others some proof of the existence of God, that was not my intention. Maybe I tried to say this when I said, “It's easy to reject God on an intellectual level. I find it difficult to totally reject the idea of God.

When I look at it from that point of view, the possibility, rather than the impossibility, it becomes clear, to me, admittedly without proof.”

The point I was trying to make is that in many cases, maybe most, God is rejected because of religion. Can I prove that. Certainly not. But it's my opinion, and it's my opinion that there is a lot of truth to it.

It's been many years since I worked with any logical arguments other than some pretty simple ones. But it's my sense now that I came away from those years with the idea that logic is a way of trying to apply mathematics to reason that somehow seems to fall short.

I don't find the words “sense” or “referent” in Gaunilo's argument (and I did read it). My concept of this has been that a referent is something that might be referred to as moving meters, in this case something that at least at some time had real meaning. For most of us in this country and in this generation, we've had that referent, the referent of God. If that had not been the case, if we grew up without religion or without saying our nightly prayers or without singing hymns in church, there would not be a referent. Accepting or rejecting God would not be a conscious choice. If we were brought up with that referent, it is or was a conscious choice.
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Henry David Thoreau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Stoney, if you go back, I think it clear I was not contending your point but expanding upon it with other possibilities: God can be rejected for many reasons.

The point of Gaunilo's argument was likely that the concept (conceiving) of god and god are two different things. One is sense or meaning or, to me, the moving of meters, the other is referent, the thing refered to. To the accepter or rejecter, regardless religion, Anselmo's arument holds because the sense is the referent. To the atheist the concept makes no sense. Gaunilo's argument helps explain that.

Certainly logic, reason, rational thought falls short--for everyone. It fails the accepter and the rejecter equally in any attempt to give voice to the concept they may possess individually. Why would it be necessary to go further?

Chao-chou's Dog: A monk asked Chao-chou, "Has the dog Buddha nature or not?" Chao-chou said, "Mu."
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justine
Member
I believe in alot of things I can't see, or understand.
I don't understand the wind, and I don't see it, and when wind and air currents are explained to me, it still doesn't make sence. But, I believe in the wind.

Just because I don't understand something, doesn't make it not real.
Just because I don't see something, or have " proof" I can understand, doens't make it not real.

Proof is in interesting term, I mean many scientific therories are supposed to be
" proved" but, have they ever produced " proof" of the Big Bang" or just supported therories?

I do see "proof " that God exists, you may not understand my " proof" , it may not take a form you consider understandable. Thats ok.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply