By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The thread about mysticism and meta-physics. Today's topic homosexuality

Aura7541 on 27 February 2015
setsunatenshi said:

4- who is this thomas you speak of? aristotle? what does aristotle have to do with any of this? please expand.

 

Of all names to name, why Aristotle? He believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, a belief that was shattered by Galileo.



Around the Network
Max... on 27 February 2015
beeje13 said:
Well, we've heard it all today folks. Believinging in freedom is apparently a curse, a secret dark, movement known, as of today, 'Positivism'.

Also, in today's highlights, we found out how advanced Alien species got rid of homosexuality to ascend to paradise, and being an Atheist is in fact Illogical.

Stay tuned for more VGChartz!


FOX News will have an interest in that one.



setsunatenshi on 27 February 2015
Aura7541 said:
setsunatenshi said:

4- who is this thomas you speak of? aristotle? what does aristotle have to do with any of this? please expand.

 

Of all names to name, why Aristotle? He believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, a belief that was shattered by Galileo.


If anything Aristotle helped shine a light on how wrong the monotheistic modern religions are with the Euthyphoro dilemma, also known as problem of evil. If anything, bringing up aristotle is going against most theist claims, but sure don't let me stop it :)



Max... on 27 February 2015
reggin_bolas said:
Aura7541 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Because atheism relies on the absolute belief in the nonexistence of a Creator or God. Nonexistence is impossible to prove. Existence of God isn't. It's been done before. Thomas did it. Artistotle did it with the unmoved mover. Modal logic proves it by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Rejection does not necessarily mean absolute belief in nonexistance. The fact that you did not properly learn the definition of atheism really shows your irrational bias.

From Merriam Webster Atheism is defined as:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity 

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 


So? Prove it.



Aura7541 on 27 February 2015
reggin_bolas said:

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 

Which god, though? The Christian god? The Great Budha? VIshnu? Izanagi? Odin? Which one?

We can disprove the existence of these gods. While we cannot test if there is an existence of a god or gods, the point is that the deities the people believe in don't exist since we have evidence that does not coincide with the religious doctrines and texts.



Around the Network
Esiar on 27 February 2015

So new-agey. Sounds like something I came up with when I was 11, actually. I don't remember what it was though, I just remember it sounded really Hindu and New-Age in nature.



Can't wait for The Zelder Scrolls 3: Breath of The Wild Hunt!

reggin_bolas on 27 February 2015
Max... said:
reggin_bolas said:
Aura7541 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Because atheism relies on the absolute belief in the nonexistence of a Creator or God. Nonexistence is impossible to prove. Existence of God isn't. It's been done before. Thomas did it. Artistotle did it with the unmoved mover. Modal logic proves it by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Rejection does not necessarily mean absolute belief in nonexistance. The fact that you did not properly learn the definition of atheism really shows your irrational bias.

From Merriam Webster Atheism is defined as:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity 

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 


So? Prove it.

Nah, I'm merely posting a reference to the questions you ask. Entertaining your dissent further would derail the purpose of the thread which is not to debate the legitimacy of science and religion. Artistotles unmoved mover has to do with cause and effect. I suggest you look it up in your spare time if you're interested. 

A purpose of meta-physics is to keep positivism out of it. The purpopose of positivism is to keep meta-physics out of science. Not here to debate scientifically or adduce proof. 

This thread is a place for learned men and women to discuss things from a spiritual vantage point using sources that are mystical in nature or medial. 



setsunatenshi on 27 February 2015
Max... said:
reggin_bolas said:
Aura7541 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Because atheism relies on the absolute belief in the nonexistence of a Creator or God. Nonexistence is impossible to prove. Existence of God isn't. It's been done before. Thomas did it. Artistotle did it with the unmoved mover. Modal logic proves it by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Rejection does not necessarily mean absolute belief in nonexistance. The fact that you did not properly learn the definition of atheism really shows your irrational bias.

From Merriam Webster Atheism is defined as:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity 

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 


So? Prove it.


that's an apt definition for atheism for a:

as for b: it's not exactly correct, it sounds a bit like strong or positive atheism, not atheism itself.

the key fallacy in his argument is considering atheism a positive claim. it is not, it's the default position. the positive claim is 'there is a god/gods', atheism is merely a 'i don't believe it until you demonstrate it'



Aura7541 on 27 February 2015
setsunatenshi said:

that's an apt definition for atheism for a:

as for b: it's not exactly correct, it sounds a bit like strong or positive atheism, not atheism itself.

the key fallacy in his argument is considering atheism a positive claim. it is not, it's the default position. the positive claim is 'there is a god/gods', atheism is merely a 'i don't believe it until you demonstrate it'

A common mistake reggin_bolas did was generalizing all atheists as people who absolutely do not believe in deities. However, atheism has many different shades of grey and a bunch of atheists are skeptical until proven otherwise with empirical evidence.



reggin_bolas on 27 February 2015
setsunatenshi said:
Max... said:


So? Prove it.


that's an apt definition for atheism for a:

as for b: it's not exactly correct, it sounds a bit like strong or positive atheism, not atheism itself.

the key fallacy in his argument is considering atheism a positive claim. it is not, it's the default position. the positive claim is 'there is a god/gods', atheism is merely a 'i don't believe it until you demonstrate it'

That's wrong. You're confusing epistemology with ontology. The latter is the theory of reality. Atheism is an ontology. It posits there are no Gods or Intelligent Agency.