Absurd is the Word
This topic contains 74 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
PopeBeanie 2 years, 10 months ago.
-
I don’t see religion as a set of literal claims about the world that can be judged true or false the same way as claims about natural phenomena or history.
Hmm. Have you ever convinced a religious person that their claims aren’t true (or false)?
There is a certain rudeness in engaging in “Here’s what you really mean”-ism. It’s as if you’re saying “You’re simply not smart enough to know what you’re saying because you’re not saying what you think you are saying.”
As for an interesting book, have you ever read or even heard about G. Spencer Brown’s The Laws of Form?
It’s been described as “straddling the boundary between mathematics and philosophy.” Brown develops a whole system of mathematical logic around just one logical operator he calls “the distinction” and two “laws of transformation.” His system is taken quite seriously as a little googling will reveal. In fact, a claim is made that using his systems, the Riemann conjecture can be shown to be false, though to my knowledge no proof or disproof has gained widespread acceptance.
As a teaser, here’s a video:
This man thinks that not only does Brown’s system straddle the boundary between mathematics and philosophy but between those fields and religion as well.
A LITTLE LATER it occurred to me that one point he makes refers to the “Can you get something from nothing?” question. He indicates that every distinction is an act of creation. A simple example is to take a blank plane and draw a circle. Something out of nothing.
Taken further, consider acts of artistic creation. Write a novel or poem. Paint a painting or make a piece of jewelry. You can say they are all derivative in certain ways (you can’t write a poem without a language, for example), and yet we create novel things all the time. And it’s absurd to label them all as simply derivative. The new proves that something can come out of nothing.
Just some thoughts but perhaps you know what I’m really saying.
Tell me about it. I start a Hi-how-are-you thread and all of a sudden
Yeah…you started with a Hi how are you and were greeted cordially, and then you made some dubious blanket statements on atheism later and were fairly challenged. You are a moderator of discussion boards, you should know that such replies are not unusual nor unreasonable.
I’m being accused of not only being a closet theist but also an apologist for slavery and oppression.
For the love of God please stop misrepresenting what we say. Any mature intellectual discourse avoids this at all cost. Jake said that some of what you said “sounded like the words of a theists”. That is not a claim that you are a closeted theists. Zheesh. Nor did anyone call you an apologist for oppression. If your response to fair critique is to overreact and turn it into a personal attack that no one actually made…then you are a fair distance from any adult table per intellectual discourse.
I think I’ve seen enough of your Crank Tank here. If you ever wonder why people don’t think atheists are ready for a seat at the grown-up table of society’s discourse, take a look in the mirror.
This is the equivalent of minor hissy fit where someone says a few things, gets pissy when challenged, does a fairly terrible job when responding (if at all responding) and then resorting to a mix of name calling and down talking. The adult table is where people respond to being challenged by addressing said challenges/questions, defends their statements and is capable of admitting they misspoke or even conceding a point. The first person who should hold up a mirror is the person who first mentions the mirror.
If you ever wonder why people don’t think atheists are ready for a seat at the grown-up table of society’s discourse, take a look in the mirror.
On second thought, let’s not go to the grown-up table of society’s discourse. It is a silly place.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.