Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

The logic of language requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Am I missing your point?

I think so. You asserted, or at least implied, that someone with a-theist leanings might not understand God, when you knew, as we all do, that this was incorrect. It was a distraction in the form of a straw man attack.

No-one said they didn't understand God. No-one has accused anyone else of not understanding God. You used the idea that someone has not understood God to create your straw man attack. Logical fallacies are not a suitable basis for meaningful discussion.

The logic of language (and understanding-epistemology) requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Make sense?

Of course it makes sense. And therefore, it makes a nonsense of your strawman attack, based on the ridiculous claim that atheists don't understand the concept of "God".

[3017Metaphysician]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

The logic of language requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Am I missing your point?

I think so. You asserted, or at least implied, that someone with a-theist leanings might not understand God, when you knew, as we all do, that this was incorrect. It was a distraction in the form of a straw man attack.

No-one said they didn't understand God. No-one has accused anyone else of not understanding God. You used the idea that someone has not understood God to create your straw man attack. Logical fallacies are not a suitable basis for meaningful discussion.

The logic of language (and understanding-epistemology) requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Make sense?

Of course it makes sense. And therefore, it makes a nonsense of your strawman attack, based on the ridiculous claim that atheists don't understand the concept of "God".

PC!

On the surface we are in agreement, but many (perhaps a poll might be helpful) that I know of, deny that understanding (for some reason-again folks here like alta and other's), and argue in a similar nonsensical way for 'no-thing". Right?

To that end, I would say there's your "straw man attack" (?). You seem to be comparing apple to oranges... .

[Atla]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Just for the record, I have never in any way, shape or form stated or implied that there is nothing rather something, I'm not a nihilist. Looks like more confusion based on irrational assumptions. (Also, it's Atla not alta.)

[Atla]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Also, for the first time ever, you could look up in a dictionary what atheism means. Spoiler alert: most atheists don't think that there isn't anything.

[3017Metaphysician]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Just for the record, I have never in any way, shape or form stated or implied that there is nothing rather something, I'm not a nihilist. Looks like more confusion based on irrational assumptions. (Also, it's Atla not alta.)

Alta Quote:

"3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, are inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes."

I'm confused. does that correspond to something, nothing, or an illusion?

[3017Metaphysician]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Also, for the first time ever, you could look up in a dictionary what atheism means. Spoiler alert: most atheists don't think that there isn't anything.

Now you've flip-flopped, again. Before you said you didn't have a belief, now you're implying (the dictionary meaning) that your belief is based on a God that doesn't exist?

[Atla]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Just for the record, I have never in any way, shape or form stated or implied that there is nothing rather something, I'm not a nihilist. Looks like more confusion based on irrational assumptions. (Also, it's Atla not alta.)

Alta Quote:

"3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, are inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes."

I'm confused. does that correspond to something, nothing, or an illusion?

We were talking about the nature of cause and effect, which is how things are arranged, how things are related to each other. Whether things exist, don't exist, or are illusory, is not even the same topic.

(Also, it's Atla not Alta.)

[Atla]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Also, for the first time ever, you could look up in a dictionary what atheism means. Spoiler alert: most atheists don't think that there isn't anything.

Now you've flip-flopped, again. Before you said you didn't have a belief, now you're implying (the dictionary meaning) that your belief is based on a God that doesn't exist?

Where was God mentioned in "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything"?

[3017Metaphysician]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Just for the record, I have never in any way, shape or form stated or implied that there is nothing rather something, I'm not a nihilist. Looks like more confusion based on irrational assumptions. (Also, it's Atla not alta.)

Alta Quote:

"3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, are inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes."

I'm confused. does that correspond to something, nothing, or an illusion?

We were talking about the nature of cause and effect, which is how things are arranged, how things are related to each other. Whether things exist, don't exist, or are illusory, is not even the same topic.

(Also, it's Atla not Alta.)

Don't take this the wrong way, but your intellectual dishonesty has lead most, including me, to believe you're trolling, again.

For some reason, it seems as though you intentionally misrepresent your position. Perhaps it is easier to divert attention from a feeling of so-called 'defeat', rather than deal with an opponent's real argument, not sure.

Again, the broader topic is how Atla arrives at a belief system that posits things like no-God, no cause and effect (cosmological argument), and so on.

Since you've said cause and effect is "inherently illogical" I'm asking you to support that belief and/or conclusion. Please share your sense of logic, relative to that belief (or any belief for that matter), if you are able.

[3017Metaphysician]

Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing.

Also, for the first time ever, you could look up in a dictionary what atheism means. Spoiler alert: most atheists don't think that there isn't anything.

Now you've flip-flopped, again. Before you said you didn't have a belief, now you're implying (the dictionary meaning) that your belief is based on a God that doesn't exist?

Where was God mentioned in "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything"?

We can keep playing, it's ok:

God is mentioned in the definition of Atheism, no?

[Atla]

Just for the record, I have never in any way, shape or form stated or implied that there is nothing rather something, I'm not a nihilist. Looks like more confusion based on irrational assumptions. (Also, it's Atla not alta.)

Alta Quote:

"3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, are inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes."

I'm confused. does that correspond to something, nothing, or an illusion?

We were talking about the nature of cause and effect, which is how things are arranged, how things are related to each other. Whether things exist, don't exist, or are illusory, is not even the same topic.

(Also, it's Atla not Alta.)

Don't take this the wrong way, but your intellectual dishonesty has lead most, including me, to believe you're trolling, again.

For some reason, it seems as though you intentionally misrepresent your position. Perhaps it is easier to divert attention from a feeling of so-called 'defeat', rather than deal with an opponent's real argument, not sure.

Again, the broader topic is how Atla arrives at a belief system that posits things like no-God, no cause and effect (cosmological argument), and so on.

Since you've said cause and effect is "inherently illogical" I'm asking you to support that belief and/or conclusion. Please share your sense of logic, relative to that belief (or any belief for that matter), if you are able.

No, I said cause and effect as normally understood is inherently illogical. I also didn't posit no-God. I don't misrepresent my position, I'm not diverting away attention, and I have no feeling of defeat.

That's 5 lies out of 5 again. As for your sixth claim: who are these "most", who you think see me as intelectually dishonest? Can you quote or name them?

[Atla]

Also, for the first time ever, you could look up in a dictionary what atheism means. Spoiler alert: most atheists don't think that there isn't anything.

Now you've flip-flopped, again. Before you said you didn't have a belief, now you're implying (the dictionary meaning) that your belief is based on a God that doesn't exist?

Where was God mentioned in "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything"?

We can keep playing, it's ok:

God is mentioned in the definition of Atheism, no?

Yes, which is relevant to "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything" how? You can't hold a line of thought which you yourself started?

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta Quote:

"3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, are inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes."

I'm confused. does that correspond to something, nothing, or an illusion?

We were talking about the nature of cause and effect, which is how things are arranged, how things are related to each other. Whether things exist, don't exist, or are illusory, is not even the same topic.

(Also, it's Atla not Alta.)

Don't take this the wrong way, but your intellectual dishonesty has lead most, including me, to believe you're trolling, again.

For some reason, it seems as though you intentionally misrepresent your position. Perhaps it is easier to divert attention from a feeling of so-called 'defeat', rather than deal with an opponent's real argument, not sure.

Again, the broader topic is how Atla arrives at a belief system that posits things like no-God, no cause and effect (cosmological argument), and so on.

Since you've said cause and effect is "inherently illogical" I'm asking you to support that belief and/or conclusion. Please share your sense of logic, relative to that belief (or any belief for that matter), if you are able.

No, I said cause and effect as normally understood is inherently illogical. I also didn't posit no-God. I don't misrepresent my position, I'm not diverting away attention, and I have no feeling of defeat.

That's 5 lies out of 5 again. As for your sixth claim: who are these "most", who you think see me as intelectually dishonest? Can you quote or name them?

We can keep playing:

Doesn't that mean that you as an Atheist don't believe in God, and that you believe cause and effect lacks common sense (since using your words it's "inherently illogical")?

[Atla]

We were talking about the nature of cause and effect, which is how things are arranged, how things are related to each other. Whether things exist, don't exist, or are illusory, is not even the same topic.

(Also, it's Atla not Alta.)

Don't take this the wrong way, but your intellectual dishonesty has lead most, including me, to believe you're trolling, again.

For some reason, it seems as though you intentionally misrepresent your position. Perhaps it is easier to divert attention from a feeling of so-called 'defeat', rather than deal with an opponent's real argument, not sure.

Again, the broader topic is how Atla arrives at a belief system that posits things like no-God, no cause and effect (cosmological argument), and so on.

Since you've said cause and effect is "inherently illogical" I'm asking you to support that belief and/or conclusion. Please share your sense of logic, relative to that belief (or any belief for that matter), if you are able.

No, I said cause and effect as normally understood is inherently illogical. I also didn't posit no-God. I don't misrepresent my position, I'm not diverting away attention, and I have no feeling of defeat.

That's 5 lies out of 5 again. As for your sixth claim: who are these "most", who you think see me as intelectually dishonest? Can you quote or name them?

We can keep playing:

Doesn't that mean that you as an Atheist don't believe in God, and that you believe cause and effect lacks common sense (since using your words it's "inherently illogical")?

Do you even understand the difference between having no belief in God and positing no-God, the two forms of atheism, or are you being deliberately dishonest?

[3017Metaphysician]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your intellectual dishonesty has lead most, including me, to believe you're trolling, again.

For some reason, it seems as though you intentionally misrepresent your position. Perhaps it is easier to divert attention from a feeling of so-called 'defeat', rather than deal with an opponent's real argument, not sure.

Again, the broader topic is how Atla arrives at a belief system that posits things like no-God, no cause and effect (cosmological argument), and so on.

Since you've said cause and effect is "inherently illogical" I'm asking you to support that belief and/or conclusion. Please share your sense of logic, relative to that belief (or any belief for that matter), if you are able.

No, I said cause and effect as normally understood is inherently illogical. I also didn't posit no-God. I don't misrepresent my position, I'm not diverting away attention, and I have no feeling of defeat.

That's 5 lies out of 5 again. As for your sixth claim: who are these "most", who you think see me as intelectually dishonest? Can you quote or name them?

We can keep playing:

Doesn't that mean that you as an Atheist don't believe in God, and that you believe cause and effect lacks common sense (since using your words it's "inherently illogical")?

Do you even understand the difference between having no belief in God and positing no-God, the two forms of atheism, or are you being deliberately dishonest?

No, I don't understand the difference. That's part of what I've been asking you(?)

Please share those differences if you are able.