quote:

---

Some people attempt to define atheism negatively, but a negative definition has been succesfully demonstrated of theism and the definition, even negatively defined, carries particular views posited by the members of either group.

---

There is an invisible pink elephant floating in my room. You can't see, hear, feel, smell, or touch it, but I can. I know he is real because I found this old book the other day that talks about him, and last night I had a dream where he spoke to me!

All hail the magical, invisible pink elephant!

What?? You don’t believe me!? Well, you just try and prove that he doesn't exist!

P.S.: The elephant is finicky and gets very mad at non-believers. He likes to hide their keys, socks and loose change. But you'll never know that it was him who did it until you start believing in him.

P.P.S: Actually, you believe in the elephant already – everybody does. But there’s a wicked little invisible purple unicorn that puts mean thoughts into your head that the magical invisible pink elephant doesn’t exist. If you ever have any doubts about existence of the pink elephant, it’s the invisible purple unicorn that’s putting them into your head.

P.P.P.S. Did I say the pink elephant likes to hide your loose change? Sorry – it’s actually the mean purple unicorn that made me think that – he’s the one responsible for all the bad things I do.

Down with the mean, invisible purple unicorn!

Mockery destroys credibility.

david

Mr.Aggie,

Orphan is right. The mockery is unwarranted. I even sent praise of some of the work of your site and industry of thought. But you are resorting to canned arguments, and at the moment even seem to have punted the more difficult questions on the Objectivism thread.

You need to deal with those, and not resort to the mocking mischaracterizations that critics with actually less erudition and thought-argument style than you have to resort to. No one with a great deal of theological, historical, or philosophical knowledge would resort to the `imaginary animals' or Easter Bunny type comparisons, even as critic.

I do think there are minor benefits of making comparisons of god to pink elephants/Easter Bunny. When a non-believer tries to explain the falseness of the God concept to a believer, giving an absurd character other than God the same properties of god can show the believer the non-believer’s point of view. The believer thinks pink elephants are absurd, just as the non-believer thinks the concept God is absurd. For this point, I think such comparisons are useful.

That said, there are major benefits in NOT making those comparisons as it tends to upset people and give them the idea that you are not as serious about the discussion as they are (it took me awhile to learn this because from my viewpoint all I'm doing is making a comparison between two non-existent things).

Doubtful,

quote:

---

do think there are minor benefits of making comparisons of god to pink elephants/Easter Bunny. When a non-believer tries to explain the falseness of the God concept to a believer, giving an absurd character other than God the same properties of god can show the believer the non-believer’s point of view. The believer thinks pink elephants are absurd, just as the non-believer thinks the concept God is absurd. For this point, I think such comparisons are useful.

---

That's because you are unaware of the important and crucial distinction that large numbers of very intelligent, high-brow and credible people NEVER believed or believe those other examples. They are not in the same category. But that's a side-effect of the massive general ignorance of theology and history both.

So when an arguer uses it, not only to they "upset" people, they immediately show they are in that uninformed category.

Titan,

<<That's because you are unaware of the important and crucial distinction that large numbers of very intelligent, high-brow and credible people NEVER believed or believe those other examples. They are not in the same category. But that's a side-effect of the massive general ignorance of theology and history both.

So when an arguer uses it, not only to they "upset" people, they immediately show they are in that uninformed category.>>

You are right that there is a HUGE distinction between belief in god and belief in those other examples. I don’t know of anyone who, at any time, believed seriously in those other examples (I would argue that most are aware of this distinction). However, THAT specific quality of those examples is what gives them their usefulness. If I compared Allah to God for the purpose of showing how I view the concept of God, the comparison could be clouded by debatable properties of Allah as compared to God. Believers in God would view the concept of Allah differently than a non-believer would. If I were to use pink bunnies, the comparison has less potential to be confusing because both parties know pink bunnies don’t have real attributes; believers and non-believers view pink bunnies exactly the same.

In my case, I don't use comparisons of god to make-believe things in order to lower the probability of God’s existence. I use it to convey how belief in God (an entity for which I don’t believe) is similar from my viewpoint to that of how believer’s view the make-believe entity (an entity for which ALL believers don’t agree, and for which other attributes won’t potentially enter to “cloud” the comparison).


[This message has been edited by Doubtful (edited 8/15/2003 1:17p).]

Doubtful,

quote:

---

In my case, I don't use comparisons of god to make-believe things in order to lower the probability of God’s existence. I use it to convey how belief in God (an entity for which I don’t believe) is similar from my viewpoint to that of how believer’s view the make-believe entity (an entity for which ALL believers don’t agree, and for which other attributes won’t potentially enter to “cloud” the comparison).

---

Okay. I see the distinction you are making. So it is more a case of poor psychological strategy than coming from clulessness about things other than the present. Granted. I can even agree it conveys how the belief is seen as unfounded.

However, in MrAggie's case, given the depth of what was discussed on the other thread as well as here, its use amounts to a punt IMO.

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 8/15/2003 1:22p).]

titan-let me see if I am summing up what you are saying correctly.

"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****."-

or inane humor...

david

I love how you critize my "mockery" without bothing to reply to my argument.

[This message has been edited by MrAggie2003 (edited 8/15/2003 7:34p).]

You still have not engaged in any honest debate with any argument brought up yet. You either change topic or engage in strawman arguments. Bringing up examples such as pink elephants not only demeans the topic, but yourself as well. As I challenged earlier:

What does 2 + 2 equal?

A seemingly simple question, however I am sure your answer will not be correct, since you will not answer it directly, but instead go on about purple unicorns...

(I'm copying this from the Objectivism thread since it's relevant to this one as well.)

Back to epistemology:

Why are you talking to me?
Is it because you merely derive pleasure from randomly spitting out whatever random thoughts cross your brain?

What would you have me do with the words that you are communicating to me?
Shall I merely unthinkingly memorize them, to be replaced by whatever the next person I hear utters?

What is your purpose in communicating about anything with anyone at all?
Is it merely to copy-paste whatever mental information is in your head to another, or another’s head to yours, without any regard for its content?

I shall tentatively guess that your goal is not to merely mimic the ideas of others, nor to make other people mimic yours. If that were your goal, then I could read and repeat everything I read on this forum, then listen and repeat anything I heard on tv, then listen and repeat anything I heard from my neighbor, and so on, without any care or even conception of “truth” or “untruth.”
No, I am going to venture to say that your goal is not mere imitation, but that the information your are communicating is actually meant to reflect reality.
Your choice to interact with me, assumes that you have confidence in the fact that your words actually reflect reality, that you can use reason to communicate your understanding of reality to others, and that two people can’t hold a contradictory opinion and both be right.

Merely by your choice to communicate with me, you assume that (a) reality is objective (or how is your idea any better than mine?) (b) truth is objective (we can’t both be right) (c) rational arguments about reality can be made (or what’s the point of talking) and (d) both our minds are capable of rationally comprehending the true nature of reality

As you can see, implicit in all sensation, all awareness, all perception, and all conception and irreducible to any other concepts are two axioms:

First: I am conscious -- to deny this is laughable. To be conscious means to be conscious *of* something. This is the axiom of existence.
To be conscious *of* something means to be conscious of *something*. This is the axiom of identity.

Any attempt to try to prove that you are not conscious and that you don’t exist assumes the validity of both axioms – otherwise, *who* is making the argument, and *what* is the argument about? I can’t prove the axioms to you because they are self-evident and not dependent on any lower arguments. The very concept of “proof” assumes that something exists to be proven, and someone exists to prove it. To deny either identity or existence is to assume their truth.

Thank you MrAg, to be proven right is so much better then knowing I am correct. Since simple math is beyond your comprehension, how about this:

What are the first three letters of the alphabet?

Once again not especting a correct answer, but rather more incoherent babble.

a,b, and z.... i mean c


d'oh

You know, when I said "I promise to behave and refrain from ad-hominem attacks", I was hoping you'd have the courtesy of doing the same.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, I'd suggest that you keep going to your church rather than trying (emphasize "trying" to engage in debate.

[This message has been edited by MrAggie2003 (edited 8/16/2003 2:32a).]

Oops, did I just break my own rule? :-/


But seriously folks, does anyone dare to respond?

Reviewing this thread, I believe your "argument" has been responded to. Those who responded also posed questions in return which you have not answered. I think that is what they are waiting for.

david

Have you taken those 5 points to discuss with "pros" in astrophysicts/cosmology or done any of your own research to counter my contention that changes in any would make ANY form of intelligent life impossible?

Orphan is right. Still waiting for an intelligent response other than an arbitrary "write off" based on your need to disprove God.

All that aside however, I am interested to know how you think you and the rest of the universe came into being. Who or what made possible your two axioms? And if it wasn't a who or what, how did it become possible for you to be here to fulfill them?

MrAg,

I have not made one attack yet, just stated what is painfully obvious to all but apparantly yourself. Why do you assume I go to church, or am even Christian for that matter? Be careful on your assumptions, all is not what it would appear to be. The two simple questions are necessary in order to set a foundation for where you stand on the perception of reality. From that simple foundation perhaps one may learn as well as teach.

From observation of forum debates in the past, usually it is the case that credible parties try to respond to each and every one of the issues brought up by the other side.

In this case, Mr. Aggie doesn't seem to have done this at all. Instead, from what I can tell, he's only picked a very few choice phrases to respond to, and ignored mountains of other points. I'm of course just lurking here, but I too am interested to see what his responses to those points would be.

strings 01,

Welcome, and thanks for the impartial observation. I said as much on the similar Objectivism thread, and even re-emphasized what had not been answered. I am actually surprised given the writing level at this non-answer.

One factual piece of evidince of God...

"Beer is proof that God loves us."

Benjamin Franklin, 1784

Ben Franklin was one wise old man!

quote:

---

Have you taken those 5 points to discuss with "pros" in astrophysicts/cosmology or done any of your own research to counter my contention that changes in any would make ANY form of intelligent life impossible?

Orphan is right. Still waiting for an intelligent response other than an arbitrary "write off" based on your need to disprove God.

All that aside however, I am interested to know how you think you and the rest of the universe came into being. Who or what made possible your two axioms? And if it wasn't a who or what, how did it become possible for you to be here to fulfill them?

---

The point of my explanation was that even if we have no idea how it is scientifically possible just how life came about, any alternative explanations are just arbitrary speculations. Suppose some robot created humans. Or suppose alien energy-beings from planet Zyrog created earth solely that their pets, the cockroaches, might have a place to retire. Or suppose that earth is one big experiment to see just how fallible these humans will be if some farmer guy claims to be the creater of the universe. Or suppose that humans are the produce of the Probability Engine that makes extraordinarily unlikely things possible. Or suppose that there are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parallel universes, and this is the only one with life on it. Or suppose that the universe exists in an infinity cycle of destruction and rebirth, and each time is just slighly different to alow life to arise this time. Or suppose that...

Well, I could go on forever. Can you disprove all of the arbitrary conclusions I can come up with? Then why should I believe yours?

I have no idea just how the universe came about -- but that's a reason to use a scientific process to find out, not create arbitrary theories out of thin air to fit your delusions of being the center of the universe.

[This message has been edited by MrAggie2003 (edited 8/16/2003 11:48p).]

"I have no idea just how the universe came about--but that's a reason to use a scientific process to find out, not create arbitrary theories...."

Those DID come out of the scientific process, which does untilize theories based on the available knowledge thus far. Thanks for proving both my points, the second being that the universe was created. Your fight to disprove God as that creator seems fairly arbitrary and comes out of your own baseless theory, certainly not by any "scientific process".

And your thinking that I believe we are the center (or the sole purpose) of the universe is absolutely wrong as any of the long time posters who have argued for that against me will attest.

I am always amused by those who claim no evidence for the existence of God, especially when they wish to dictate what kind of evidence they're willing to accept.

quote:

---

There is an invisible pink elephant floating in my room. You can't see, hear, feel, smell, or touch it, but I can. I know he is real because I found this old book the other day that talks about him, and last night I had a dream where he spoke to me!

All hail the magical, invisible pink elephant!

What?? You don’t believe me!? Well, you just try and prove that he doesn't exist!

---

First, the evidential basis you claim for your belief in the invisible pink elephant does not correlate to the evidential or presuppositional basis I would claim for theism. So, if your intent was to create an analogy mocking evidential or presuppositional approaces to Christian belief, you missed the mark.

Secondly, that does not negate what you quoted from me. It really does not formally address it, but I know where you want to head, so I will play along for a moment. Let's assume, for the moment, that you actually believe those statements. You come up to me a profess belief. I have several responses at my disposal. First of which, I rebut your evidential or philosophical claims to the existence of an invisible pink elephant that exists in your room. One such argument might turn on, "How can something be both invisible and pink?" Another would be, "How did you come to know about the existence of the invisible pink elephant?" And so forth. The second response would be to posit what I believe about the matter. I could then say, "I do not believe in a world where invisible, pink, god-like elephants exist. I have no evidence for belief, nor do I have philosophical proof that such a being exists, nor should I take a faith-proposition that such a being exists." Why don't I believe that? I then posit my reasons for the existence of the Christian God and how that contradicts the belief in invisible pink elephants. The argument would proceed (generally) as follows:

1. God exists.
2. If God exists, invisible pink elephants do not exist.
3. Invisible Pink elephants exist.
4. By 1 & 2, Invisible pink elephants do not exist.
5. Therefore, through RAA on premise 3 based upon lines 3 and 4 (which rest on premises 1,2,3), Invisible Pink elephants do not exist.

An objectivist could respond in both fashions. Either through simple negation or through proving their objectivist worldview and showing it's incompatibility with the invisible, pink elephant.

Lastly, to re-iterate the point of the post you quoted. Theism can be negatively defined. Any worldview requires a burden of proof and burdens always exist on both parties of a fair debate. The affirming position has the burden to proove and the negating position has the burden to negate. These issues have no neutral positions out of ignorance -- as we have aptly demonstrated with your example. We all believe in the non-existence of invisible pink elephants. You chose the example because we all believe in the non-existence of invisible pink elephants.

So, I feel the need to remind you that you did posit that God did not exist and gave several "proofs" to demonstrate that (which did not work). The proof, in this thread at least, would remain on you.

"Don't you know the Dewey Decimal System?!?!" ~ Conan (the Librarian)

[This message has been edited by The Librarian (edited 8/18/2003 12:19a).]

.

Would you like to add a Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz to that Orphan?

I'm gaining weight waiting for MrAggie2003 to come back and respond.

Doubt he will, though....

Not much to do early in the morning....

david

As for me, I AM a spiritual creature. There is more to me than this physical body in which
I live.

The search for God is really just a natural outflow of this simple truth. It is our self-evident and non-provable spiritual nature which demands the search for a spiritual God.

Mr. Aggie:

If the idea that we have spirits - a completely unprovable idea - is as absurd as the idea that there is an invisible pink elephant in the room, then why does nearly everyone believe it?

Wow, I just read over this thread, and it makes me yearn for the days of NoAC, DamnGood, and Moses Hall. They all responded to what was said to them.



[This message has been edited by obclHORN (edited 8/20/2003 4:35p).]

He said he was not going to over on his board: www.rationalmind.net

Steve..did you raed this article?

quote:

---

Why Objectivists Shouldn’t Be “Atheists”

---

All I can say is WOW!

david