The Futile Arguments Thread

[Byronazriel]

Almost. What it means is that such beliefs and titles are merely just that, and they are solely reliant on only those who give such titles, or believe in such things. Opinions only have worth to that which has the opinion. Hence, what are GOD's without something to grant them such a title? Under this logic GODS are inherently undefined to the extent that anything can be considered a GOD should the title be given. This includes you, the dirt you walk on, myself, birds, existence itself, or anything in or of existence. So either all things are GODS, or there are no such things as Gods.

Things are still things regardless of what we call them. An inch is still an inch, even if it's called three and a half jumbnops. It's the same distince.

Even if I change my name, I am still the same person I was then.

Also, why is athesim necessarily a better position than panthesim?

[TheJackel]

Things are still things regardless of what we call them. An inch is still an inch, even if it's called three and a half jumbnops. It's the same distince.

Even if I change my name, I am still the same person I was then.

Also, why is athesim necessarily a better position than panthesim?

Things are Things is correct, and that is why it's so irrelevant.. And the term GOD is vague and literally undefined, and even under definition anything can fit within that definition. Creator? Well I can create a space ship from lego's too! Creators are irrelevant because no creator could create that which they themselves require to exist, and that includes existence itself. All things are slave to the rules of existence and no creator could ever actually create those rules. The plausibility of higher entities than the human race was never the argument.. Gods are what I am expecting someone to prove, especially when it's so vaguely undefinable and open to opinions. It's a moving goal post, literally!  My arguments show creationism to be false, and GODs to be subject of pure opinion and nothing more. Minds can't literally create reality, and any mind that has the power to manipulate reality is nothing more than another entity. Hence, ants, birds, people can all manipulate reality. And there is no entity that is not bound to the rules of existence. Entities can not create the rules, they can only use and manipulate them in a strict and limited fashion because they are equally bound to them. Technically there is no difference between a man building cities and cultivations of man made life forms than some entity in another universe building a star system (as an example). Power and ability is subjective and irrelevant. All powers, entities, objects, or things higher than point zero (ground state)are irrelevant to existence as a whole because they are merely products of existence and reliant on complexities greater than ground state. Thus the goal post can be moved via opinion, expectations, and requirements to any level one could desire when it comes to calling something a "GOD".. Gods are thus logical fallacies.

 Even power and divinity are worthless without the lowest levels of either or. In fact, the most powerful and valuable thing in and of existence is the ground state. This is the very base to all existence at the lowest level possible in complexity, power, and divinity. A GOD is not a GOD if it can not solve infinite regress or represent a universal set of all sets. In fact the only thing that can do that is the substance of existence itself.

The problem is GODS is that the goal post is infinitely movable in any direction on the scale of divinity, power, or level to any person, place, object, or thing.

[Byronazriel]

Gods don't have to create things, unless they're specifically creator gods, and they don't necessarily have to be all powerful. The tem god is vaguely defined, but that in and of itself is not an argument against their likeliness.

Also, most creator gods don't create existance. They create our universe, or even just the Earth itself. Most gods are just responsible for a particular thing, Aphrodite goddess of love for example, or important/powerful in some way. Raven, the trickster for example.

Here's a link to a story depicting creation that in no way states that reality or existence was being created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_in_mythology#Raven_creates_the_world

[Existentialist]

Existentialist - I have just looked up your position on Wikipedia and going by that your label would be Positive atheism or Strong atheism or hard atheism.
"Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that 'There is at least one god' is a false statement"
"Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism"

People on this forum would likely agree with these labels for you.

I went back to ready your original post within this thread and I can see why the majority (if not all) of the readers got confused. You are probably right given your own definition of all the terms and words you have used. But if you continue to hold onto your own definitions you will most likely find everyone (in face to face chats or on other forums) are likely to be as confused as everyone has been here. I think noone has said it better than what Inevitable Droid said "In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication. In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist".

Thanks for your post Stevil.  I do not like being labelled at the best of times, but being labelled by Wikipedia is pretty ignominious.  If I am going to be labelled, I will choose the label myself, thanks very much.  In my view, the correct label for someone who denies the existence of God is "atheist".

If you are saying that the only legitimate label that anyone can use is one that has been chosen for them by people on this forum, I think you undermine a fundamental principle of self-determination.

On the subject of people getting confused, I think that insisting on the use of long lists of different adjectives like strong, weak, positive, agnostic atheist, apatheist, pantheist, does more to confuse people than anything else.  By all means use them but it is not polite to insist that someone else must adopt any of these terms.  There is nothing inaccurate about me calling myself an atheist.  I would be grateful if others would respect that.  I suspect that people have not, infact, been getting 'confused' at all.  Rather, they disagree with my idea that a person who denies the existence of God is an atheist, and are misrepresenting their resulting anger and then blaming me for their supposed confusion, as you have done.  People are of course free to disagree with me and to express anger appropriately, but I simply do not buy the argument that they are getting 'confused'.  People seem to be clear enough in their heads to try to insist that I take on all kinds of adjectival qualifications to my description of myself as an atheist, so it does not make sense that the same people are confused.  I think they are trying by whatever means possible to force me into a pigeonhole that makes them feel more comfortable.  Sorry, I don't fit.

On the subject of Wikipedia, I have been quoted Wikipedia about 20 times in this thread and it feels like a battering ram.  Of course people are free to quote it, but I do not rate Wikipedia as a reliable source, and I find people tend to quote even this unreliable source selectively to support their point and hold back quotes that contradict it.  I do not quote Wikipedia on principle.  Its editorial process favours consensus over intellectual reasoning.  I find it a deathly source, I am not alone in deeming it unreliable - others have concurred, not least the US Court of Appeals.  I do use it for private research and for pointers to reliable sources, but I would advise against quoting Wikipedia directly and always prefer to quote a real source when that is necessary.

Even given my view, I think people will find that there is nothing in Wikipedia that denies my view that a person who denies the existence of God is an atheist.  If I am wrong, anyone here is free to provide the evidence - though be careful, a Wikipedia quote chosen selectively is worse than no quote at all.

[Whitney]

Existentialist...why do you think everyone is mad at you?  Maybe if you weren't so quick to get offended by everyone you wouldn't think they are mad?

No one is saying an atheist is not someone who denies god...almost all of us are saying an atheist can also be someone who simply doesn't believe in god and your definition is overly narrow.

Also, don't you think it's a bit odd to complain about others labeling you when you already told the whole board that most of the atheists here are actually agnostics (which most, again, would agree with if you didn't mean they were not also atheists).

There is also no reason to get upset over someone using wiki to refer to the common definition of a word...after all, you even state it is a collection of common understandings.

[Existentialist]

Thanks for your reply Whitney.  I think we both need to put some effort into defining exactly what we mean here and not misrepresenting the other party, don't you?  For a start I didn't actually use the word 'mad', which carries a number of connotations which I have no intention of alluding to, because I could legitimately be accused of insulting people, which I am sure you will pick me up on.  Insulting people is something I have never, ever done in the short time I have been on this message board - if I am mistaken in saying this then please could you PM me or otherwise evidence my transgression as I would like the opportunity to apologise unreservedly to anyone who may have been offended by me.  

What I said was that people appeared to be misrepresenting their anger as confusion, but you are right perhaps anger is overly strong even though it is an accurate description of the emotion I think has been in play when people say things like "your definition of atheist sucks".  I think I would rephrase it and say they are misrepresenting their 'irritation' as confusion.  

I don't see that I'm getting offended by 'everyone', but I do feel irritated myself by some people who, I think it cannot be denied, try to get me to stop using my own definitions and use their definitions instead.  The last posting from Stevil is a good example of that, saying that only confusion will result if I 'continue to hold on to' my definitions, others have said similar things.  This is not to say that I can force, coerce or otherwise require people not to try to get me to use their preferred labels, I'm guilty of trying to get others to use my preferred definitions sometimes.  In reality, we all do to some degree - I think that's in the nature of comparing different views of the world.  I am not immune to feeling irritated, and it would be unreasonable of me to expect that others will not be irritated either.  The important thing is to recognise that the feelings evoked in exchanges of views are not personal - we are all nice people, we just have different opinions about some big issues.

I think there is always a legitimate debate to be had about the relative meanings of the terms agnostic and atheist.  My view is that these words are mutually exclusive, and while I accept that the majority of people active in atheist internet forums are very insistent that they are not mutually exclusive, I think the majority of people in the world at large, who are not experts, and who do not edit any Wikipedia pages, would concur with my view that it's not really possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.  Descriptions like 'agnostic atheist' would confuse most people, I think.  That is not to say I have any right to stop people using such descriptions, just as nobody has any right to stop me commenting on them when they do.

I accept that you think my definition of the word 'atheist' is too narrow (someone who denies the existence of god).  However it is not a definition that I have made up randomly, it is a legitimate definition in its own right and as such it remains legitimate for this definition not to include people who simply don't believe in god.  There's nothing wrong with me saying that, though of course you and others are free to disagree with the definition I am using.  If people try to suggest I shouldn't use it then obviously that will cause problems.  My understanding was that this is an atheist forum and the definition I am using conforms perfectly to that description.

I agree that Wikipedia is a collection of common understandings.  However, common understandings are not necessarily correct understandings, the view of the majority is not always right, there is a widespread view in philosophical circles that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for material, and people do often quote Wikipedia selectively to support their view.  I do not think that this collection of observations constitutes my being 'upset' at people quoting Wikipedia, however I reserve the right to express my views about Wikipedia when people do quote it or selectively quote it as a source.

It is clear to me that you and I fundamentally disagree about the nature and definition of atheism.  This should be an opportunity for an exciting and challenging set of debates, and you can rest assured that I will remain polite and civil in my contributions.  Obviously if you misrepresent what I've said or put emotional words into my mouth like "mad", "offended" and "upset" then this will obviously run the risk of upping the emotional tension in the forum.  I think it is reasonable for me to make direct reference to this emotional tension as I do not believe in ignoring elephants in the room such as heightened feelings, however I will try to do my best to diffuse these feelings constructively and I am sure Whitney you will want to do the same.

Finally, you may rest assured that because work resumes next week I will probably not have the time to devote myself so fulsomely to Happy Atheist Forum.  May I apologise in advance if some of my posts in future do not contain the same care and attention that I have devoted to them this week.

Happy New Year.

[TheJackel]

Gods don't have to create things, unless they're specifically creator gods, and they don't necessarily have to be all powerful. The tem god is vaguely defined, but that in and of itself is not an argument against their likeliness.

Again, creation was simply an example used. I think you are not quite grasping the obvious key point of: "vaguely defined". This is exactly why either all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all. I can call myself GOD because of X,Y, and Z. It doesn't matter if a GOD can create, doesn't create, or even do anything for that matter.. It's simply a total complete and absolute opinion to which is irrelevant regardless if anything exists that could be called a God. It's 100 percent a logical fallacy slave to require your opinion, or even it's own opinion. And even then it's entirely irrelevant.

Also, most creator gods don't create existance. They create our universe, or even just the Earth itself. Most gods are just responsible for a particular thing, Aphrodite goddess of love for example, or important/powerful in some way. Raven, the trickster for example.

Again this would be irrelevant and no different in concept than man creating cities, synthetic life, or even the possibility of new universes under particle collisions as already discussed above. Birds build nests, ant plant forests, as material physicality makes it possible to exist and create. So the whole point is that it is not defined what-so-ever, and is totally and completely reliant on opinion. Basically it's your choice and opinion if you want to worship X thing for X reason. I may as well worship water and call it the sustain-er of my life since I am 75% water molecules, or I could worship empty space since all humans are 99.7% empty space.

So unless someone here can specifically define GOD without being subject to opinion, it's a worthless concept.

[LegendarySandwich]

What I said was that people appeared to be misrepresenting their anger as confusion, but you are right perhaps anger is overly strong even though it is an accurate description of the emotion I think has been in play when people say things like "your definition of atheist sucks".  I think I would rephrase it and say they are misrepresenting their 'irritation' as confusion.

It sucks because we already have a common definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people. Sorry, but trying to reinvent the definitions of words is, in my opinion, just stupid, unless it's in dire need of changing (which "atheism" isn't). You can argue about "self-determination", "free though", blah blah blah all you want, but what it ultimately comes down to is understanding. If you want to define atheism as "the denial of God", go ahead, but I view it as useless to do so.

Happy new years, by the way.

[Existentialist]

Thanks for your reply Legendary Sandwich.  Obviously my stance continues to cause considerable irritation and annoyance to you.  I'm sorry about that.  However I'm not changing my stance I'm afraid, it is an entirely legitimate stance.  

I think there is more than one definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people.  If you ask the majority of people the question, "What do you call someone who believes there is no god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist".  If you ask the majority of people, "What do you call someone who doesn't believe in god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist."  Therefore we have two established definitions of atheism which both mean something different, but which both work and are understood by the majority of people.  I have not at any point 'reinvented' the definitions of words - please supply your evidence that I have done so if you think this is the case.  

The definition that atheism is the denial of the existence of gods is a standard definition that has been around for a long, long time.  Please feel free to check this and let me know you findings.

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for someone who denies the existence of God to deny God completely in every respect.  This is a logical consequence of the type of atheism I represent, though obviously not a definition of it.  I hope this is useful, at least.

[LegendarySandwich]

Thanks for your reply Legendary Sandwich.  Obviously my stance continues to cause considerable irritation and annoyance to you.  I'm sorry about that.  However I'm not changing my stance I'm afraid, it is an entirely legitimate stance.

Not really, no. It's just the way I talk.

I think there is more than one definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people.  If you ask the majority of people the question, "What do you call someone who believes there is no god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist".  If you ask the majority of people, "What do you call someone who doesn't believe in god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist."  Therefore we have two established definitions of atheism which both mean something different, but which both work and are understood by the majority of people.  I have not at any point 'reinvented' the definitions of words - please supply your evidence that I have done so if you think this is the case.  

The definition that atheism is the denial of the existence of gods is a standard definition that has been around for a long, long time.  Please feel free to check this and let me know you findings.

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for someone who denies the existence of God to deny God completely in every respect.  This is a logical consequence of the type of atheism I represent, though obviously not a definition of it.  I hope this is useful, at least.

You're right. I withdraw my objections.

I prefer the definition "someone who doesn't believe in any gods", as this can apply to both weak and strong atheists and applies personally to me, but your definition works too, I suppose.

[Stevil]

There is nothing inaccurate about me calling myself an atheist.  I would be grateful if others would respect that.  
...
Even given my view, I think people will find that there is nothing in Wikipedia that denies my view that a person who denies the existence of God is an atheist.  If I am wrong, anyone here is free to provide the evidence - though be careful, a Wikipedia quote chosen selectively is worse than no quote at all.

I have no problem with you calling yourself an atheist.
The issue is that I am an atheist as well, but not by your definition. I also feel that theists can and do sometimes get the wrong impression that an atheist is a person who believes that there is no god. In some way this could be seen as similar to your definition.
The problem I have with that is that the vast majority of atheists (and for that matter the vast majority of participants on this site) do not fit your atheist definition. Our stance is not based on a belief system, we base our stance on empirical evidence. This is an important distinction to me and for you to blur those lines and simply call me agnostic and not an atheist is somewhat insulting. I am both agnostic and an atheist, in so far as atheist goes I am a weak atheist as I do not implore a belief system. I like to back up my stances with proof which for me is important.

Your definition adds confusion and misleads people as with regards to the stance of the vast majority of atheists.

[Byronazriel]

Gods don't have to create things, unless they're specifically creator gods, and they don't necessarily have to be all powerful. The tem god is vaguely defined, but that in and of itself is not an argument against their likeliness.

Again, creation was simply an example used. I think you are not quite grasping the obvious key point of: "vaguely defined". This is exactly why either all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all. I can call myself GOD because of X,Y, and Z. It doesn't matter if a GOD can create, doesn't create, or even do anything for that matter.. It's simply a total complete and absolute opinion to which is irrelevant regardless if anything exists that could be called a God. It's 100 percent a logical fallacy slave to require your opinion, or even it's own opinion. And even then it's entirely irrelevant.

The god title can be given to anything, this is both a linguistic and philisophical standpoint. What it is not, however, is an argument against gods existing. (I am using the term "gods" to refer to beings that are fundamentaly powerful, a representation of a force or idea, and immortal. Such as Thor, Zeus, Gaia, Ra, and Quatzequatel.) Just because you can call anythign a god, doesn't make them all gods. Though I wouldn't throw out that idea completey either.

Also, most creator gods don't create existance. They create our universe, or even just the Earth itself. Most gods are just responsible for a particular thing, Aphrodite goddess of love for example, or important/powerful in some way. Raven, the trickster for example.

Again this would be irrelevant and no different in concept than man creating cities, synthetic life, or even the possibility of new universes under particle collisions as already discussed above. Birds build nests, ant plant forests, as material physicality makes it possible to exist and create. So the whole point is that it is not defined what-so-ever, and is totally and completely reliant on opinion. Basically it's your choice and opinion if you want to worship X thing for X reason. I may as well worship water and call it the sustain-er of my life since I am 75% water molecules, or I could worship empty space since all humans are 99.7% empty space.

So unless someone here can specifically define GOD without being subject to opinion, it's a worthless concept.

You're perfectly able to worship whatever you want, and call it a god. I don't disagree with that, I do however question why that makes it worthless. People do worship water and space! So what? Why would that make it worhtless, and how could that possibly mean that gods (The kind I discribed earlier) cannot exist?

[TheJackel]

The god title can be given to anything, this is both a linguistic and philisophical standpoint. What it is not, however, is an argument against gods existing. (I am using the term "gods" to refer to beings that are fundamentaly powerful, a representation of a force or idea, and immortal. Such as Thor, Zeus, Gaia, Ra, and Quatzequatel.) Just because you can call anythign a god, doesn't make them all gods. Though I wouldn't throw out that idea completey either.

Incorrect.. Again I think you miss the point entirely and why it indeed is an argument against gods existing. You also do not seem to understand, or at least not paying attention to the fundamentals of the meaning power under this argument. Humans are fundamentally more powerful than lets say a single ant to which can easily be squashed and killed. Power is irrelevant.. Man can nuke and destroy entire civilizations, or grow new ones from it's ashes. For that we can call ourselves GODS under your argument. Ants can plant entire forests that creates ecosystems for other living things, and that we could call them GODS under your argument. And that is why I say you are incorrect, I can call anything a GOD and make it as such, or I can say there is no such things as GODS under the same fundamental conceptual reasons and have it be 100% correct.

So when you attempt to define GOD, you are only placing opinionated expectations on what you would consider to be a GOD regardless of what entity, object, thing, or being you try to attach it to. Otherwise it is nothing more than just another existing thing like everything else is. So indeed there are no such things as GODS because I wouldn't care what entity exists, what it could or could not do, or how much supposed power it might have. All that crap is irrelevant, and thus so is the concept of GODS.

You're perfectly able to worship whatever you want, and call it a god. I don't disagree with that, I do however question why that makes it worthless. People do worship water and space! So what? Why would that make it worhtless, and how could that possibly mean that gods (The kind I discribed earlier) cannot exist?

Actually it is a completely worthless concept.. GOD's are inherently concepts of power, and anything with power is powerless without what gives them power. And everything that exists contains power on some level or another to which makes the argument irrelevant and moot as a logical fallacy. The only worth an opinion has is the worth it has to only that which has the opinion, otherwise it's essentially worthless.  You may believe GOD's exist under opinion, but it has absolutely no value what-so-ever in my own perspective. I don't need to prove to you that GOD's don't exist because they simply do not exist under my standards and expectations. It is simply by nature and virtue not an applicable concept since it's definition is boundless or inherently undefined. There is a reason why the title and concept of GOD is vague and only a concept of opinion, and a title of opinion. The existence of any entity, object, person, place, or thing is irrelevant to this argument. Everything that exists can in fact be worshiped and regarded as GOD!. And the ultimate power is existence itself, the rules of existence, and the substance of existence from which everything is bound to, slave to, and in need of in order to exist. There is no power greater than the lowest power possible!.

Examples:

Consciousness and awareness can not function or exist without information. A 100 story buildings can not exist without the 99 other floors below it. Ground state is more powerful than any supposed thing that relies on it in order to exist just because it is the very base to all that exists. No person, place, or thing of any sort or kind could exist without material physicality derived from the substance of existence itself.  That is the ultimate power, and I still don't apply the concept of GOD because under those guidelines, all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all.


So here is my argument..

Someone worships all things of existence as GODS..Where does your concept of GOD go at that point? What actual relevance is left? It's no different at that point than calling all things as things of existence. It becomes moot. And it's still irrelevant because another persons can have a difference of opinion and consider nothing in existence is applicable to being a GOD because they realize the irrelevance of the concept. Hence why I can say with 100 percent absolution that there is no such things as gods. So the concept is a logical fallacy..

[Whitney]

Obviously if you misrepresent what I've said or put emotional words into my mouth like "mad", "offended" and "upset" then this will obviously run the risk of upping the emotional tension in the forum.  I think it is reasonable for me to make direct reference to this emotional tension as I do not believe in ignoring elephants in the room such as heightened feelings, however I will try to do my best to diffuse these feelings constructively and I am sure Whitney you will want to do the same.

Mad means angry/upset...as in "don't get mad" or "why are you mad at me".  You act defensive every single time someone disagrees with you which leads me to think disagreement offends and upsets you...perhaps you don't see your posts this way but your tone makes you come across in that manner.

I find it hypocritical that you would complain about the usage of words after having asked everyone to not tell you how to use words.

I've been running this forum for over 4 years now and HAF gets tons of compliments on how civil it is compared to other forums...I'll ask you to not tell me how to construct my posts.

[TheJackel]

Obviously if you misrepresent what I've said or put emotional words into my mouth like "mad", "offended" and "upset" then this will obviously run the risk of upping the emotional tension in the forum.  I think it is reasonable for me to make direct reference to this emotional tension as I do not believe in ignoring elephants in the room such as heightened feelings, however I will try to do my best to diffuse these feelings constructively and I am sure Whitney you will want to do the same.

Mad means angry/upset...as in "don't get mad" or "why are you mad at me".  You act defensive every single time someone disagrees with you which leads me to think disagreement offends and upsets you...perhaps you don't see your posts this way but your tone makes you come across in that manner.

I find it hypocritical that you would complain about the usage of words after having asked everyone to not tell you how to use words.

I've been running this forum for over 4 years now and HAF gets tons of compliments on how civil it is compared to other forums...I'll ask you to not tell me how to construct my posts.

I have to agree with Whitney because this forum is far more civilized than most. Rarely do I see personal attacks or someone devaluing someone as a person here in regards to their beliefs, or regardless of subject, argument, or discussion. We all might have disagreements but none of those should be taken on an emotional level or offensively, but rather be regarded as simply a difference of view. As long as we all act like adults and give each other respect, we can always get passed the differences without attacking each other verbally or physically. Emotions however will run high, and some will become defensive, but I am glad to see civil behavior on this forum. And that is why I like this site more than others..

Cheers