Trying to find grounds for atheism...: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Trying to find grounds for atheism... » Trying to find grounds for atheism...

Trying to find grounds for atheism...
Is this credible grounds?

Trying to find grounds for atheism...

benjamin90
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2008
Location: Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/09/08 - 06:52 AM: Subject: Trying to find grounds for atheism...	#1
I am presently on the brink of declaring myself an atheist from a position of, it has to be said, wishy-washy agnosticism. I have put effort into forming a justification of atheism, and I not posit it as such to the internet to see what other minds make of it. My reasoning can be divided into stages as follows... 1. I affirm that all that is finite must be of an ultimately deterministic nature. Entities which exist contingently, and all that they can or shall ever do, should be determined by influences external to itself. If this was not the case, then a contingent entity would have the capacity to do something due to any number of abstract influences. Such influences would be apparent ex nihilo. But as I understand it, a contingent item is an item which is not necessarily true in light of other items independant of itself. Therefore, a finite entity, which must come and go out of existence, must be contingent. And determined henceforth. 2. Then I consider that all elements of people must be finite, and therefore part of this deterministic structure. The only way in which persons can be said to free will; that their motives and actions can be said to be independant of external causality, is if they have souls. By soul, I denote a second, immaterial side of a person, which can survive outside of the physical body. However, there is no credible reason to affirm such an entity. It is equivalent to watching a game of cricket and asking where the team spirit is, as if the team spirit is something inexplicably 'extra' to the game. Similarly, with the concept of the soul, to postulate such an entity arises out of confusion when we look at the corporeal body and ask where the person is, as if the person is inexplicably 'extra'. The empirical evidence; NDEs, regressions to past lives, sighting of ghosts and spirits are all best described as projections of the mind, since this does not raise the traditional problem of mind-body dualism; that is how the body and mind can co-operate when they are comprised of two wholly different substances. I would affirm that any clarity cast on this would be spurious, since it would appear to come from nothing, or that we must accept a parallelism between the two, which seems improbable when we turn to introspection. If the doctrine of the soul, the "ghost in the machine" as Ryle called it, is a falsity as such, then we must accept that all elements and consequences of persons and their activity are finite, contingent, and determined like the rest of the universe. And while it has not been rendered impossible for there to be a second, immaterial side to the universe, it is now at this point as credible as affirming that there are other universes, unconnected to ours, which house blue watermelons and other such fantasies. Occam's Razor dictates that we should not multiply entities, including universes, beyond necessity. Therefore, I disregard ideas of the multiverse. 3. At this point then, the universe and man can be said to exist monistically. As mentioned, the immaterial soul has been shown to be a category mistake, and there is no cause to suggest a second, immateral substance in the abscence of applicable evidence. 4. God then, should be considered to be an idle observer of the happenings of the universe at this point. God is considered to have the capacity to be aware of all and to influence all. God is completely free of all constraint, including the tautologies of mathematics and logic, since these are finite human encodings which enable us to possess some semblance of the universe, in its constant activity, in relation to them. In particular, the conception of God is anthropocentric in that he is also loving of man; he cares for our sufferings and wills towards happiness for all persons, even if he cannot grant such an item. God is said to be good, and willing persons towards the good. But as a term, good encompasses so many things as to be indefinable in relation to other items such as pleasure, duty and other relevant concepts. We cannot define good per se because good is a word of positivity in general, a mark of approval. Good is not pleasure, good is not duty, rather pleasure is good, but so is duty good. Good comes 'after', not 'before'. 5. Good is the word persons use to approve of something which accords with their desire to be free of physical pain and mental passivity. However, it is then purely human; finite, contingent and fleeting. God cannot then be all-good by human understanding, since as an entity with the capacity to stop suffering ever occurring, God should choose to prevent our suffering ever occurring, but doesn't. This is perfectly understandable from God's perspective when we rememeber that God is the observer of a monistic universe, in a state of constant activity. To choose to assist persons in their efforts to avoid sensual pain and mental inactivity, would be a finite decision, since it is now apparent that people are entirely contingent things. However, that choice it would be formed ex nihilo, which is paradoxical because it is finite. God thus has no cause to assist us in our efforts to avoid pain and distractions to our mental occupations, or anything finite in the universe to do anything for that matter. Good necessitates finite approval, and does not exist in the infinite action and reaction of the universe. God is then passive towards the finite happenings of the universe, including our plight. 6. This infers that God then can only be as an entity of infinite awareness and power. Either we say that such an entity is not really worthy of the title of God, which leads to atheism, or we say that God is equivalent to the universe, which is pantheism. But the latter is spurious. We already have an entity of infinite power in the universe itself; as an entity of finite action and reaction which has and will keep occurring ad infinitum, all that is and will ever be is apparent in its nature and constitution. It encompasses all that can and will ever be. It encompasses all that can will ever be done. To say God is the universe is inappropriate since the judgement is synthetic; the concept of God is not wholly contained with in the concept of the universe and vice versa. 7. By refuting the latter pantheist incarnation, we are then only left with atheism, since we have no need to postulate God in the face of this self-encompassing universe. Edited by benjamin90 on 05/09/08 - 07:06 AM

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/09/08 - 02:36 PM:	#2
benjamin90 wrote: 1. I affirm that all that is finite must be of an ultimately deterministic nature. Entities which exist contingently, and all that they can or shall ever do, should be determined by influences external to itself. Consider the following: I am playing billiards with a friend. I shoot the cue ball from across the table and sink the eight-ball in the corner pocket. Now imagine I replaced the eight-ball with, say, an egg. What happens? The egg explodes. Why? Because what the egg is is different from what the eight-ball is: they have different natures. Causation involves two entities acting according to their natures. Actions, or causes, or "influences" as you say, are not disembodied things, they happen only because an entity of some kind made them happen. Some existent thing cannot be acted upon by "abstract influences" because "abstract objects" do not exist in the material realm; it is a category error to think otherwise. benjamin90 wrote: 2. Then I consider that all elements of people must be finite, and therefore part of this deterministic structure. The only way in which persons can be said to free will; that their motives and actions can be said to be independant of external causality, is if they have souls. By soul, I denote a second, immaterial side of a person, which can survive outside of the physical body. However, there is no credible reason to affirm such an entity... If the doctrine of the soul, the "ghost in the machine" as Ryle called it, is a falsity as such, then we must accept that all elements and consequences of persons and their activity are finite, contingent, and determined like the rest of the universe. [...] 3. At this point then, the universe and man can be said to exist monistically. As mentioned, the immaterial soul has been shown to be a category mistake, and there is no cause to suggest a second, immateral substance in the abscence of applicable evidence. There is no reason to conclude from the fact that there is no disembodied, independent, immaterial consciousness that humans cannot have free will. The physical can be reduced to (or "explained in terms of") the mental, but one cannot explain the mental in terms of the physical. The mental is a supervenient set of properties upon the physical set of properties, much in the way aesthetics or economics supervene on the physical world. The mental does not need to abide by a determinist nature of causation. Why is it so hard to believe that the mental and the physical are not one entity/substance? You bring up Ryle's example of the "ghost in the machine" and category errors, but your reasoning commits a category error in trying to locate the mental (consciousness) and the physical (brain) in the same place, when the difference between them is only linguistic, not ontological: they describe the same thing, only with different language. benjamin90 wrote: God is said to be good, and willing persons towards the good. But as a term, good encompasses so many things as to be indefinable in relation to other items such as pleasure, duty and other relevant concepts. We cannot define good per se because good is a word of positivity in general, a mark of approval. Good is not pleasure, good is not duty, rather pleasure is good, but so is duty good. Good comes 'after', not 'before'. I believe the original word was "benevolent", which is ultimately different from "good". Theists started saying "God is good" probably because "benevolent" is a so-called "big word". But the two words have slightly different meanings: benevolent is a character trait, "an inclination for charitable, kind acts", a cause. "Good" as you say is more of a consequence and not really a virtue, not really a cause of action. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/09/08 - 04:58 PM
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

180 Proof
Cult Deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3530

Posted 05/09/08 - 03:15 PM:	#3
benjamin90 wrote: 1. I affirm that all that is finite must be of an ultimately deterministic nature. Entities which exist contingently, and all that they can or shall ever do, should be determined by influences external to itself. If this was not the case, then a contingent entity would have the capacity to do something due to any number of abstract influences. Such influences would be apparent ex nihilo. But as I understand it, a contingent item is an item which is not necessarily true in light of other items independant of itself. Therefore, a finite entity, which must come and go out of existence, must be contingent. And determined henceforth. Okay ... 2. Then I consider that all elements of people must be finite, and therefore part of this deterministic structure. The only way in which persons can be said to free will; that their motives and actions can be said to be independant of external causality, is if they have souls. By soul, I denote a second, immaterial side of a person, which can survive outside of the physical body. However, there is no credible reason to affirm such an entity. Okay ... 3. At this point then, the universe and man can be said to exist monistically. As mentioned, the immaterial soul has been shown to be a category mistake, and there is no cause to suggest a second, immateral substance in the abscence of applicable evidence. Okay. 4. God then, should be considered to be ... What happened to "Occam's Razor" and "category mistake" and Ryle's "ghost in the machine"? *No soul, no immateriality, whence* "god"?** 5. Good is the word persons use to approve of something which accords with their desire to be free of physical pain and mental passivity. However, it is then purely human; finite, contingent and fleeting. God cannot then be all-good by human understanding, since as an entity with the capacity to stop suffering ever occurring, God should choose to prevent our suffering ever occurring, but doesn't. Epicurus would agree. Okay ... 6. ... We already have an entity of infinite power in the universe itself; as an entity of finite action and reaction which has and will keep occurring ad infinitum, all that is and will ever be is apparent in its nature and constitution. It encompasses all that can and will ever be. It encompasses all that can will ever be done. Omnia, sive Natura. 7. ... we are then only left with atheism, since we have no need to postulate God in the face of this self-encompassing universe. Sounds good. A supernatural (i.e. inexplicable / unintelligible), transcendent (i.e. non-spatiotemporal / immaterial / unobservable), personal (i.e. human-scale agent), creator (i.e. cosmic-scale agent) "god" (such as the JCI deity) is a conspicuously incoherent concept, and as such, that it cannot have a referent anymore than a "five-sided triangle" can have a referent. No need to postulate any "impossible object" inorder to ease your anxieties about the (current) gaps in our knowledge of reality and understanding of our existential predicament; intelligence and courage is what's needed beneath the empty sky -- or as Kant recommended: Sapere Aude!
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 196

Posted 05/09/08 - 05:38 PM:	#4
Just a few questions and a note: Benjamin90 wrote: God is completely free of all constraint, including the tautologies of mathematics and logic, since these are finite human encodings which enable us to possess some semblance of the universe, in its constant activity, in relation to them. What if God's nature is that of perfect order without defect, and math and logic merely reveal order? 'Can' God go against His own nature? 5. Good is the word persons use to approve of something which accords with their desire to be free of physical pain and mental passivity. However, it is then purely human; finite, contingent and fleeting. God cannot then be all-good by human understanding, since as an entity with the capacity to stop suffering ever occurring, God should choose to prevent our suffering ever occurring, but doesn't. How does it follow that God allowing us to suffer is not good? Good comes 'after', not 'before'. Well, something is 'good' only in relation to something else. So if everything was made for God and must answer to God, then what is ultimately good is what is in accordance to God.

philoapocalyptic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/11/08 - 10:57 AM: Subject: Then you need to keep trying...	#5
Hey Benjamin, You are a very capable wordsmith but your logic is flawed...Your logic is more along the lines of a debate. and so something litle less challanging. Prove the existance of God... I guess the first step to this is to define what God is and then say the discussion that follows "proves" Gods existance. It then follows... all you have shown is that what you believe in is true from your own side and that it does not neccessarily agree with other people definitions of God. Maybe you should first define your current belief system before you declare an allegiance to any ideological stance. Then at the very best you can "only" challange your own belief system. By the way I am not religious, athiest or agnostic... I am indifferent (but draw on many resources)

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/11/08 - 10:58 PM:	#6
philoapocalyptic, If you are indifferent, then why did you respond? You ask benjamin90 to define his 'belief system'. Can you define yours and have it fall into a category that is not 'religious, atheistic or agnostic'? The latter is characterized by a noncommittal state which seems to describe you. I don't understand why his logical path is to first prove God's existence. Rather, I understand his post to be one where he has merely looked at the question from several angles and has come to a conclusion. No prior belief system is necessary. Unless you categorize belief in logic and rational thinking as a belief system. benjamin90's OP was his attempt to "find grounds for atheism..." This does not mean he is an atheist, or that he necessarily WANTS to be one. He is merely attempting to find support to the argument through logic and reasoning.

philoapocalyptic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/14/08 - 10:22 PM:	#7
Hello itry2brational, Thanks for your comments about my response to benjamins post. You say that "no prior belief system is neccessary"... that is impossible as what we think cannot be separted from our beleif systems. We are not objective or rational beings. The way we view the world, the way we view others and the way we view ourselves is inherently linked to our belief systems. My post to benjamin was neither an attack on his beliefs, his ideas, or on himslef. If benjamin feels this then I am sorry to benjamin. The first step in finding out the answer to any question is to find out where you are at this very present moment. What is your current understanding? What are your current beliefs? What are your emotions regarding any topic? Once this is clear and understood, then and only then can you move forward on a quest for "your" truth. Do you Agree or Disagree? As I said, I am not religious, agnostic or athiest... I am indifferent... If you want to put me in a box as "noncommittal" then you are more than welcome to. I guess this is your "prior belief system" that everyone needs to be labelled and placed into a box. Indifferent to me is as follows... If there was a God or god and it showed itself to me, then it would not change my life. If there was no God or god and it was proved to me, then it would not change my life. I am indifferent to the topic of Gods existence. This is very different to noncommittal and it is very different to not caring. Thanks and I hope this cleared up my comments. Edited by philoapocalyptic on 05/15/08 - 07:35 PM. Reason: spelling

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7784

Posted 05/14/08 - 10:56 PM:	#8
philoapocalyptic wrote: By the way I am not religious, athiest or agnostic... I am indifferent (but draw on many resources) Indifferent to what? Pain? Or the abstract words "there is a God"? Surely one could consider how when such a phrase, and it's cultural indicatives are adopted on a large scale, it might actually increase pain. Although there are many times in one's personal life when one can sit on the fence and avoid conflict, judging the topic unimportant, the numbers of people willing to kill and/or die in the name of a God makes it at least an extremely socially important question, even if it is entirely metaphysicially trivial. As active members of society whose actions play a part in determining the ethos of the whole, doesn't apathy encourage those who promote publically acting (and sometimes legislating) in manners that are coherent with what appears to any objective standard of evidence to be a ficticious wordview?
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

philoapocalyptic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/15/08 - 07:32 PM:	#9
I am neither a fence sitter or apathetic... see my previous explanation of what I define as indifferent . People are willing to kill/die in the name of many things. People have killed for their lack in faith of a God. People have also killed for food, for land and for sex. What is then the source(s) of our problem(s)?

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7784

Posted 05/16/08 - 08:21 AM:	#10
Stop being crypic and speak like a human being. To respond directly to your points, 1) I read your response and have no idea what you mean by indifferent. If you are going to use a word uncommonly, please clarify ahead of time. just saying: If there was a God or god and it showed itself to me, then it would not change my life. If there was no God or god and it was proved to me, then it would not change my life. shows you either as some sort of dogmatic idiot or as someone who hasn't thought through the matter much, but doesn't explain what you mean by indifference. If it was shown to me or proved to me that there was a rabid dog in my yard, it would change my life, insofar as I wouldn't go into my yard until the dog catcher took the dog away. I think you'd have to be an fool to have a fact shown to you, especially one as potentially relevent to our well-being as the existence of some sort of supernatural and intentioinal agent. So if indifferent doesn't mean apathetic or fence sitting, and I assume you don't intend it to mean foolish, what does it mean? If there was a rabid dog in your yard, would it change your life at all? If you failed to let the rabid dog in your yard's existence change your life, would his biting you change your life? God, if one could be shown to exist, seems a fair bit more consequential than a rabid dog, don't you think? 2) I am aware of no time when someone was killed motivated by the atheism of their killer. Ther proposition doesn't even makes sense. Could you back that up with facts or are you talking out of your ass? 3) Of course people have kill for other reasons than religion. So? 4) What is the source of what problem? I am clearly saying that the social phenomena of religion is one source of problems. Would you like to offer an actual argument (like is done on a philosophy forum) or are you only interested in hiding behind cryptic one liners?
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/16/08 - 11:48 AM:	#11
I too am still confused. Apathetic is a synonym for indifferent. In fact, indifferent is used in defining apathetic and vice versa. In both cases, I still don't understand why someone who is truly apathetic/indifferent would feel compelled to respond to a post on a forum which is concerned with the topic which you are 'indifferent' about. philoapocaliptic wrote: I am indifferent to the topic of Gods existence. For instance, I do not go on to some cooking forum and respond to a thread about how to properly bake a cake. I am indifferent to such things. However, if someone were to show me how to properly bake a cake I would then know and would forever be a properly-bake-a-cake-ist. To turn a phrase. I am also confused about how, as your examples state, you could still be 'indifferent' concerning the existence of something even if said something bit you on the arse, so to speak. This sounds all very wonderful and similar to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. If I am falling all I have to do is be 'indifferent' to the gravity which rushes me to my death. Just show gravity complete and utter unconcern and you will fly! Which makes for great fantasy and science fiction. Whether you want to be fitted into a box or not, you are. As much as you might like to believe, you are not so unique just because you want to be. Even snow flakes have similar properties, to eliminate that analogy. Please do not make assumptions and avoid the questions. I asked if you could: "...define yours(belief system) and have it fall into a category that is not 'religious, atheistic or agnostic'?" 'Indifference' is not a belief system. And since, as you say, we must first establish what our belief system is before tackling this topic, and since you are so nondescript/vague, then I was hoping you would enlighten us all with your unique perspective. Please define YOUR 'belief system'. If the best you can do is say that even if something/someone spoke to you or were proven to you, you would still be 'indifferent' then: 1) I don't see how that can be described as a 'belief system' 2) If that were your 'belief system' then how do you establish anything in reality? This topic of 'your truth' has always seemed to me a comfortable way of allowing one's self to believe or disbelieve anything they wish. Its a cozy way to use words which makes anything possible, in your own mind. Regardless of actuality or reality. To say "your truth" is an oxymoron. 'Your' is subjective/personal. Reality/actuality are objective. Truth: conformity with fact or reality; verity: actuality or actual existence: Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: Particular to a given person; personal: Existing only in the mind; illusory: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; unduly egocentric. Now, I know that there is a line of reasoning which says that EVERYTHING is subjective. For example a pencil on a table. The problem becomes when someone else experiences the object. If we can all see it, touch it, taste it etc then the pencil no longer is subjective. We can say objectively that the pencil exists in reality, independent of the thoughts of the first observer. This is somewhat the way science obtains knowledge. Independent verification. But I don't want to stray from the topic, so lets not go too deep down this rabbit hole. My point is that, if you wish to redefine terms to satisfy your own perspective then you divorce yourself from reality/actuality a little. So twisting words like indifferent, apathetic, truth, etc becomes an exercise in nonsense. And by what means can we establish anything through nonsense? One last dictionary term to look up. You said: philoapocaliptic wrote: [indifferent]is very different to not caring. Indifferent: without interest or concern; not caring; apathetic That is definition numero uno. So hopefully you can see why some of us are confused by both the way you present a position and redefine terms/words. BTW, all definitions were obtained from Dictionary.com

philoapocalyptic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/16/08 - 03:05 PM: Subject: spelling	#12
I will try again to describe what "I" mean by indifferent (as this appears to be the where the confusion is). If God existed then it would not change my life. If God did not exist it would not change my life. This is the case as I do not fear the consequences of either. What do I have to fear? I will die, that is certain, and I will willingly accept any consequences of my actions (whatever they may be). .... Thanks for the censored version of indifferent. When you quote a source can you please not take it out of context. That is not what science or philosophy is about. Yes, it is definition number one, but it is still out of context. To quote dcitionary.com 1. without interest or concern; not caring; apathetic: his indifferent attitude toward the suffering of others. 2. having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested. 3. neither good nor bad in character or quality; average; routine: an indifferent specimen. 4. not particularly good, important, etc.; unremarkable; unnotable: an indifferent success; an indifferent performance. 5. of only moderate amount, extent, etc. 6. not making a difference, or mattering, one way or the other. 7. immaterial or unimportant. 8. not essential or obligatory, as an observance. 9. making no difference or distinction, as between persons or things: indifferent justice. 10. neutral in chemical, electric, or magnetic quality. 11. Biology... not differentiated or specialized, as cells or tissues. 12. an ethically or morally indifferent act. 13. a person who is indifferent, esp. in matters of religion or politics. 14. Archaic... indifferently: I am indifferent well. Thus , this definition does of indifferent does not contradict my statement and I have not used the word uncommonly or incorrectly. If God existed then it would not change my life. If God did not exist it would not change my life. and... Apethetic, as defined by dictionary.com, is 1. having or showing little or no emotion: apathetic behavior. 2. not interested or concerned; indifferent or unresponsive: an apathetic audience. and... Semicolon, as defined by dictionary.com, is the punctuation mark ( ; ) used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence. I hope this clears up my definition and that we can now move back to benjamins original post.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7784

Posted 05/16/08 - 10:51 PM:	#13
So you are foolish enough that a rabid dog in your yard wouldn't change your life? Or not? Your "definition" doesn't clear that matter up. Granted, a failure to answer direct questions with direct answers often leads to such a failure to communicate effectively.
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/17/08 - 12:16 AM:	#14
Out of context? The context in question is how you have used 'indifferent' in sentences. Maybe we're unsure of what you mean by 'not caring' or 'apathetic'? Because, as you say, you are neither apathetic or uncaring but you ARE indifferent. And you have gone to great lengths to make the distinction. The confusion arises when you try to say what 'indifferent' is NOT. Forgive me for sparing everyone the seeming irrelevance of indifferent's other meanings such as: not differentiated or specialized, as cells or tissues OR neutral in chemical, electric, or magnetic quality OR an ethically or morally indifferent act. I just figured it was elementary and obvious that you did not use the word to mean any of those. Especially since they are immaterial to your definition of what indifferent is NOT. philoapocalyptic wrote: I am indifferent This[indifferent] is very different to noncommittal and it is very different to not caring. When actually it IS 'not caring'. I further submit that if you are indifferent then you are ALSO noncommittal. To prove this would be trivial. philoapocalyptic wrote: I am neither a fence sitter or apathetic. When actually, to be indifferent is to BE 'apathetic'. This is why we find you confusing and you are called 'cryptic'. You are essentially saying a hammer is NOT: a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle, used for beating metals, driving nails, etc. philoapocalyptic wrote: Apethetic, as defined by dictionary.com, is 1. having or showing little or no emotion: apathetic behavior. 2. not interested or concerned; indifferent or unresponsive: an apathetic audience. Dictionary.com is an amalgamation which draws from other sources. So please, keep your definitions in context and don't 'censor' the other sources. And by 'context' I am using it as you seem to define it in 'your' world/vocabulary. philoapocalyptic wrote: ...what "I" mean by indifferent As opposed to what? Like I said, the problem arises when you attempt to define what 'indifferent' is NOT. The rest of us take its meaning from dictionaries but your version is in conflict with them because you say 'indifferent'(as you use it) does NOT mean 'apathetic' or 'not caring'. This is what I was getting at with subjectivity. You seem to be full of it. Subjectivity that is. Everything seems to center around you. 'What "I" mean, "your" truth, what I define as indifferent'. So meaning, truth, and definitions are all subjective? I'll note that you have still yet to address ANY of the relevant issues which Reformed Nihilist and I have presented. philoapocalyptic wrote: I am indifferent to the topic of Gods existence. Yet here you are! I submit for approval or rejection that I can prove that your are NOT indifferent. For if you WERE indifferent then you never would have been here in the first place. If you TRULY had no care or interest for this topic you would never have visited the forum or posted on this topic! And I am using the word 'indifferent' as it is generally defined. Your very presence here shows interest, and that is the opposite(antonym) of indifference.

philoapocalyptic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/17/08 - 12:59 AM:	#15
Reformed Nihilst, Your direct question was amongst a series of comments intended to insult or evoke a response (I am not clear which). This as a consequence does not actually make a direct question but rather an indirect question. Insulting by inference does not aid communication. There was confusion as to the words I used and to what my definition was. This was a direct question and I felt that it was important to clear this matter up first. In response to your other question about the rabid dog... (and it is scenario based). For the sake of metaphors I will assume that the front yard is symbolic of the death process and the rabid dog is symbolic of God. If this is a false assumption then let me know. Scenario 1. You go into a front yard and there is no dog. Then there is nothing to fear. Scenario .2 You go into a front yard "knowing" that there is a rabid dog in there but choose to ignore it and get bitten. Then there is nothing to fear and you cannot blame the dog for it. It is a choice that you made to ignore the dog and as a result you are totally responsible for being bitten. Scenario 3. You go into a front yard when someone has warned you that there is a rabid dog there, but you chose to ignore them. Then you can neither blame the dog nor the person for warning you. You are responsible for being bitten. Scenario 4 You go into a front yard but didn't know about any such dog and you get bitten. This is just bad luck and there was nothing you could have done. It is neither your fault nor the dogs fault. Scenario 5. You go into a front yard and people are warning you about a rabid dog. There is a struggle and they try to hold you back but you break free and go in and get bitten. Then you can neither blame the dog nor the people that tried to detain you. Scenario 6. You go into a front yard and people are warning you about a rabid dog. There is a struggle and they try to hold you back but you break free and go in and there is no dog. Then it doesn't matter either way as there was no dog. Scenario 7. You go into a front yard and realise that there is no dog and infact no front yard and it was all just a dream. Scenario 8. You continue going from front yard to front yard to front yard. There are no dogs just endless front yards. Scenario 9. You go into a front yard and there is a rabid dog there. When you enter it licks you and wants to play. You were fearful of this dog but it ended up being a very loving dog. Scenario 10. No matter what I do the dog will bite me when I enter the front yard as it can sense fear. So... from my stance there is nothing to fear in any of these scenarios (and there are endless scenarios). I am soley responsible for my actions and I take full responsibility for my actions. I am indifferent to the existence of the dog as I am responsible through my actions as to whether I get bitten or not (and this is independant of the dogs existance). Morality (action and intention of action) can exist "outside or inside" of the existance of a God. From my point of view, morality and God are not dependant related phenomena. And yes... this is my point of view. And since I view them (morality and God) this way then I am indifferent to the existance of God or the dog. I take full responsibilty for my actions. Then you may ask "then what is morailty?. Is this not subjective?" Yes, it is subjective, but this is a whole new thread and I have no intention of going down that path at this stage. Are there any more questions I have avoided?

philoapocalyptic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/17/08 - 01:24 AM:	#16
okay... then you win. It then appears that a philosophy forum is actually about discrediting your percieved apponent and not a search to find out what other people think. Philosophy comes from two words meaning the "Love of "Wisdom". It was my mistake to expect this. You win... I am wrong and you have discredited me through your superior reasoning power, superior intellect and superior knowledge. You have something to be very proud of and keep searching for the objective truth. I suspect some time and some life experience may help you find this truth. Goodbye.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.