The illogic of Atheism

279 Replies, 30110 Views

(2018-04-06, 08:38 PM)malf Wrote: I think you are both supporting Dawkin's point. They are human constructs in the same class as the tooth fairy.

Of course, if you start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, then God must be a human construct. If you start with the assumption that God does exist, then God isn't a human construct. Where does any of that get you?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Guest's post:
  • Valmar
(2018-04-06, 08:47 PM)Chris Wrote: Of course, if you start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, then God must be a human construct. If you start with the assumption that God does exist, then God isn't a human construct. Where does any of that get you?

Ditto tooth fairy.
[-] The following 1 user Likes malf's post:
  • Steve001
(2018-04-06, 08:47 PM)malf Wrote: Ditto tooth fairy.

Ditto Sherlock Holmes. Ditto Harry Potter. Ditto Bilbo Baggins. Ditto Merlin the Magician.

So what?
(2018-04-06, 08:38 PM)malf Wrote: I think you are both supporting Dawkin's point. They are human constructs in the same class as the tooth fairy.

Oh dear.  Confused
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
[-] The following 2 users Like Kamarling's post:
  • Valmar, Dante
(2018-04-06, 08:53 PM)Chris Wrote: Ditto Sherlock Holmes. Ditto Harry Potter. Ditto Bilbo Baggins. Ditto Merlin the Magician.

So what?

I think you’ve got it Smile
[-] The following 2 users Like malf's post:
  • Steve001, Doug
Ditto the Globular Earth, for that matter. Does that mean we can prove the Earth is flat, by applying Dawkinese logic?
malf Wrote:I think you are both supporting Dawkin's point. They are human constructs in the same class as the tooth fairy.

Certainly not. You're entirely missing the point of what I (and I presume Kam) was saying. The idea behind god is that god is a necessary being - and no matter the shortcomings in human description, no matter the error in human conception, god exists. If indeed god exists, surely you wouldn't say that because mankind's conception or description thereof is not entirely accurate, that that would somehow make god not exist. If god exists, god exists independent of how accurate or not man's understanding of god is.

What I was saying was that there is no lens through which we can conceive of or discuss god but through mankind, given that (at least right now) man is the only sort of sentient being with whom a discussion of the issue can be had. Thus, we are inherently discussing a version of god that is "man-made". That is not the same as conceding that god is the of the same class as the tooth fairy, in that god and the tooth fairy are (as you're putting it) man-made constructs that we know do not exist.

Further, they are not in the same class at all - because the qualities of a god are in an entirely different realm than the qualities of the tooth fairy.
(This post was last modified: 2018-04-06, 09:01 PM by Dante.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dante's post:
  • Valmar
(2018-04-06, 08:38 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I do think we can, to an extent, distinguish a god from a religion (Christianity, Hinduism, Wicca, etc) and the qualities philosophy ascribes to a singular (not necessarily conscious) entity - the Prime Mover, the Universal Intellect, The Non-Composite Simplicity...

I think there are ways to reconcile this entity, who seems far removed from any mortal affair, with some common conceptions of god but the mileage varies.

I agree entirely
(2018-04-06, 08:56 PM)Chris Wrote: Ditto the Globular Earth, for that matter. Does that mean we can prove the Earth is flat, by applying Dawkinese logic?

I can’t see how that would work. I thought we were talking about dreamed up, unobservable entities. 

Where and why did the notion of ‘god’ arise?
(2018-04-06, 08:58 PM)Dante Wrote: Certainly not. You're entirely missing the point of what I (and I presume Kam) was saying. The idea behind god is that god is a necessary being - and no matter the shortcomings in human description, no matter the error in human conception, god exists. If indeed god exists, surely you wouldn't say that because mankind's conception or description thereof is not entirely accurate, that that would somehow make god not exist. If god exists, god exists independent of how accurate or not man's understanding of god is.

What I was saying was that there is no lens through which we can conceive of or discuss god but through mankind, given that (at least right now) man is the only sort of sentient being with whom a discussion of the issue can be had. Thus, we are inherently discussing a version of god that is "man-made". That is not the same as conceding that god is the of the same class as the tooth fairy, in that god and the tooth fairy are (as you're putting it) man-made constructs that we know do not exist.

Further, they are not in the same class at all - because the qualities of a god are in an entirely different realm than the qualities of the tooth fairy.

The idea that god is a necessary being intrigues me. You mean to explain away things that hitherto are incomprehensible?

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)