There is no such thing as an Atheists.

Author: Grugore

Posts

Total: 518
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
My knowledge is irrelevant.


janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Then stop making the claim that you know what ultimate reality is.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
I know what I am saying. Do you know what I'm saying?


How about this, can you confess The Ultimate Reality?

janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What do you mean by "confess"?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
Admit that The Ultimate Reality exists.

That there is a reality as it truly is. Reality in the truest sense.




janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I am sure that an ultimate reality exists. I doubt that you or I nor any other human knows or understands that reality.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
Ok.

So now you can say God exists.

That is the only point I am making.


The Ultimate Reality is what God means.

Whether I or anyone else understands that reality is sommething else entirely.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Ok.
So now you can say God exists.
That is the only point I am making.
The Ultimate Reality is what God means.
Practical implications is something else entirely.
Spinoza's god exists.

Noumenon exists.

Ontologically linking god with "The Truth" or "Ultimate Reality" or "noumenon" does nothing to solve the practical implications.

Awesome.  You've convinced me.  Mopac's GOD exists.

Now what.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is what God means.
No it doesn't.

All you are doing is playing with words. You are saying nothing of substance.

DESCRIBE "Ultimate reality". Explain how you came by this description. 


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
For this particular thread, I would like to stay on this topic.

Not everyone has turned in their quiz.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
You are the one playing with words.

And since you are being arbitrary, this is what you get..

THE ULTIMATE REALITY IS WHAT I ACKNOWLEDGE AS GOD.

My God exists. Catch up.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I am not playing with words. You are. I readily admit I don't know the nature of the ultimate reality.

You say it is "God" but that isn't saying much.You blow a lot of smoke out of your ass. 

Where do you get your knowledge from, Mopac? 1691 posts, and you haven't said SHIT.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
For this particular thread, I would like to stay on this topic.
Not everyone has turned in their quiz.
If you're trying to prove the (debate resolution) topic "There is no such thing as an Atheists." by redefining the word "god" to mean "reality" you are basically pursuing a DEISTIC (and or pantheistic) position.

DEISM (and or pantheism) is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

Not to mention,

In order to qualify as an atheist, you only have to disbelieve in one or more gods.

Do you believe in Zeus?  Ok, then you are an atheist regarding Zeus.

Do you believe in Nanabozho?  Ok, then you are an atheist regarding Nanabozho.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Deism can be classified as a subset of theism, not atheism.  If atheists don't exist, naturally the appropriation of atheism is off the mark as an outlook.  I'm not convinced that atheism is impossible in humans, however

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Deism can be classified as a subset of theism, not atheism.  If atheists don't exist, naturally the appropriation of atheism is off the mark as an outlook.  
The argument is not that deism is a subset of atheism.

The argument is that deism is functionally identical to atheism.

And, unless you believe in all possible gods, then you are an atheist regarding the gods you disbelieve (and or simply lack faith) in.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.  

If true, atheism may resemble something of a paradox classifiable as a subset of theism.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,294
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
--> @secularmerlin, @Stephen
Neither of you can comfess The Ultimate Reality, which is very telling.


You can't admit That Which Is Ultimately Real exists.



And you don't seem to be able to explain what the difference is between reality and what you call "the Ultimate Reality". 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.
Ok, so if I asked you, "If Zeus struck you down with a bolt of lightning, would you die?"  Do you have to believe in Zeus in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Ok, so if I asked you, "If invaders from Mars destroyed every government building on Earth, would you be prepared?"  Do you have to believe in invaders from Mars in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.
Ok, so if I asked you, "If Zeus struck you down with a bolt of lightning, would you die?"  Do you have to believe in Zeus in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?
Of course, because you need to make the assumption of Zeus


Ok, so if I asked you, "If invaders from Mars destroyed every government building on Earth, would you be prepared?"  Do you have to believe in invaders from Mars in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Yes.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am an Orthodox Christian. This is how we understand God.


Not deism.



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
I'm sorry that The Truth offends you so much. 


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.
Ok, so if I asked you, "If Zeus struck you down with a bolt of lightning, would you die?"  Do you have to believe in Zeus in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?
Of course, because you need to make the assumption of Zeus


Ok, so if I asked you, "If invaders from Mars destroyed every government building on Earth, would you be prepared?"  Do you have to believe in invaders from Mars in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Yes.
It appears you may be lacking an imagination.

I am perfectly capable of entertaining any number of imaginary hypothetical scenarios (big-foot/loch-ness-monster/space-aliens/YHWH) without making the leap to supposing they are actually real.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The Ultimate Reality.

Reality in the truest sense

Reality as it truly is.


You can't confess The Ultimate Reality?

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.
Ok, so if I asked you, "If Zeus struck you down with a bolt of lightning, would you die?"  Do you have to believe in Zeus in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?
Of course, because you need to make the assumption of Zeus


Ok, so if I asked you, "If invaders from Mars destroyed every government building on Earth, would you be prepared?"  Do you have to believe in invaders from Mars in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Yes.
It appears you may be lacking an imagination.
Noted.


I am perfectly capable of entertaining any number of imaginary hypothetical scenarios (big-foot/loch-ness-monster/space-aliens/YHWH) without making the leap to supposing they are actually real.

I reason that to assume something, it cannot be ruled impossible and there must be some inkling of belief.  



Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,294
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality.

Reality in the truest sense

Reality as it truly is.

Well that explains absolutely NOTHING!!!!


You can't confess The Ultimate Reality?

Confess? I honestly think you are ill.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
I reason that to assume something, it cannot be ruled impossible and there must be some inkling of belief.
Is it possible to be a temporary agnostic?

It sounds like you are saying that every imaginable concept must be assumed to be a very real possibility in order for it to be entertained.

In other words, "the ontological argument" (god exists because the concept of god exists).

I disagree.

But even if I was convinced by your assertion, that only makes every possible god as real to me as Zeus is to you.

And that would seem to be setting a pretty low bar.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
So you can't even say that The Ultimate Reality exists.

How telling.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,294
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
So you can't even say that The Ultimate Reality exists.

I think you cannot explain the difference between reality and what only you term "The Ultimate reality". Until you can define the difference you have nowhere to go.
Ultimately, I think you are really very ill, in reality
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Difference isn't the right word. The Ultimate Reality is reality in the truest sense of what reality means.

I think that is pretty lucid.

So you won't confess The Ultimate Reality exists?

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You use the ultimate reality as a synonym for god and since gods don't exist your ultimate reality doesn't exist