@Foghorn Knowing 180 bring a dictionary,a censor for expletives/ad hom and some amphetamines to stay awake from all the repetition and boring writing style.
More popcorn!?
Boring writing style??? Hey, whoever this number guy is he'd better stay off my turf!! I've got a brand to protect you know. He can have the expletives I guess.
I drifted off to dreamland a few times while reading 3017’s opening post but from the bits I picked up he is accusing 180 of possessing an “Einsteinian grudge” against the color red.
I believe his main point is that the atheists lacks the necessary sense/understanding to see the truth of gods existence like a theist does.
Also some kind of equivalence between theistic and atheistic reasoning.
Very verbose though. Difficult to read
I anticipate a lot of unnecessary and [s]distracting[/s] aggravating text formatting on the one hand, and a none-too-gradual devolution into "name-calling" on the other. :down:
This is why a moderator is necessary. To keep those two things from derailing the discussion like every other time. Without one we are into the same old shit as before.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Should be replaced with....
Atheism: The belief that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods.
Theism: The belief that holy books and personal experience are qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods.
Both sides share an agreement that human beings are capable, by some method or another, of generating meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. If that assumption can't be proven, then the entire debate collapses under it's own weight.
I have to agree. The first post should be a statement of one's own position! For all the learned philosophical arguments rallied to assault a dictionary definition of atheism, I still don't know why 3017 is a Christian Existentialist.
180's reply is about all that one could do with such a poor opening - try again, 3017.
I actually disagree. 180's opening shouldn't have been diverted by a weak opening by 3017, but should have just made out his case as if he had gone first. Otherwise, we just reach an immediate impasse and the discussion just ends with a whimper.
Assuming 180 has a substantive claim that Atheism is a logically supportable position, I'm not left with any basis from his post that he is correct. If, though, his point is that 3017 didn't make his point and he's willing to leave it at that, then I'm left agnostic to this issue, with one side making a failed effort at his position and the other refusing to engage.
Assuming 180 has a substantive claim that Atheism is a logically supportable position
First, let us prove that logic is relevant to such enormous questions so far beyond human scale. Until such proof is provided, all sides of the debate lack credibility, and the debate collapses under it's own weight.
As example, imagine two religious people having a debate about competing interpretations of Bible verses which are describing God. Until the Bible is shown to be a credible authority on the subject of gods, such debates are fun, but essentially meaningless.
A collapse of the theism vs. atheism debate is not automatically a bad thing. It could be just another step in a credible investigation which is making progress. As example, should we discover that hammers are not a good tool for fixing broken windows, that would be progress. Having discarded the hammer we can now turn our attention elsewhere.
If both theism and atheism are discarded, we are left with nothing. It's typically assumed this is a failure, but that's not necessarily true. A state of conceptual nothing actually matches the nature of the vast majority of reality pretty well. This would seem to matter for those who wish for their philosophy to be based on observation of reality.
Assuming I came to the debate not knowing whether to vote for Atheism or Theism and today is election day, who do I vote for based upon the respective positions submitted by our candidates?
@Hanover The debate should be more free-flowing. Let 180 make his case for. And 3017 against. Let them do it piecemeal,and if one is slower than the other so be it. The other can catch up. It doesn't have to be staccato or post for post.
Pretty slow and a very poor response from 180 to respond. 3017s opening post was not ideal,but I get the gist. 180 said nothing.
Reply to Hanover
I think that we should listen to both positions and judge the arguments fairly. The debate has barely started, and I wish to learn from it. Part of the problem which I see is that the debate position is framed in the proving of the negative, or of arguing against atheism, as the position of there being no God, or of it being illogical. This will depend upon a specific viewpoint of atheism, because there may be variations of atheism. So, this means that Amen has potentially put himself in the position of refuting any form of atheism. He may have set himself a task of lifelong philosophy.
However, as I have interacted with Amen and Proof, I wish to give both a full hearing, because they are probably approaching the hardest question in philosophy.
Assuming I came to the debate not knowing whether to vote for Atheism or Theism and today is election day, who do I vote for based upon the respective positions submitted by our candidates?
A vote could be based on which speaker is the most articulate, explains their position the most clearly etc. We could vote for a particular writer based on our opinion of their writing skill.
But in order to get us to read them in the first place, we'd first have to see a debate which doesn't just recycle what's already been said 10 billion times.
The following definition, I thought, was agreed to by both of us:
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's the dictionary definition of atheism, written by people who work at dictionary companies, not by anyone who understands atheism in the real world.
Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is instead a belief in an authority other than the authorities referenced by theism. Atheism is not a negation, it's a competing assertion. Thus...
1) Both positions bear the burden of proving the qualifications of their chosen authority for the task at hand.
@Foghorn I think the debate centres around can you disprove human eternity by so called logic or pure rationality? The answer is obviously no.
Even staunch militant atheists like Richard Dawkins accept you cannot logically disprove the existence of God.
Atheism references no authority, you are making that up. Atheism IS a lack of belief, and thats all it is. Whatever else an atheist might believe about religion or authority is irrelevant, what makes them an atheist is simply a lack of belief in god or gods.
1) the atheist has no such burden, they are not asserting anything. They simply lack a belief, lacking a belief is not an assertion.
2) the theist certainly cannot, but again the atheist has no such requirement. The atheist isnt asserting anything.
3) it collapses only because you redefined atheism specifically so it would collapse.
Assuming I came to the debate not knowing whether to vote for Atheism or Theism and today is election day, who do I vote for based upon the respective positions submitted by our candidates?
I don't think it's really gotten off the ground yet.
It's not clear what it means to have a "logical position."
If I believe the sun is bright, is that a logical position to hold? Do I need to produce a logical proof first?
Or is it that my opponent needs to show that it isn't logical to defeat me?
After a long stretch of rain, the weather is now finally suitable for gardening, so I barely have any time left. I haven't even turned on the computer for 11 days!
Reply to frank
I do agree that part of the debate may depend on what is logical. I have read some of the ideas of Strawson, and I do believe that they are useful for thinking about logic. However, our ways of viewing life are so intricately bound up with reason and logic. Of course, it is possible to come up with dictionary definitions of terms, especially logic, theism and atheism, but these are meanings used in daily discourse, rather than in fuller philosophy analysis.
Therefore, I think that the debate will be interesting, but both positions of 'logic' are likely to be open to question. It is an interesting area for debate, but I am inclined to think that rather than being a matter of rigorous debate, it is so much more, it is not about concepts as such, but about how we contemplate the world and reality. It may be that there are no right or wrong answers ultimately. However, the battle between theism and atheism is such an interesting philosophy debate, and is central to how most people begin to think about so many other philosophy questions and issues.
Reason is not an authority, it is a tool one uses when one wants to make sense.
Regardless, how one comes to be an atheist isnt definitive of atheism. Atheists can be atheists through bad reasoning, its not a position on reasoning it is a position in belief in god.
I think the debate could have started better if each poster had a pre-prepared opening statement to explain their respective positions. 3017amen did this but 180 Proof didn't.
People use the terms in different ways. Some refer to it as the lack of belief that there is a God or gods (weak atheism) and some refer to it as the belief that there is no God or gods (strong atheism).
Rather than get lost in arguing over the correct meaning of "atheism" it would be best for any self-proclaimed atheist to clarify whether they simply lack a belief in a god's existence or if they believe that no god exists (or whatever other alternatives there are).
Reason is not an authority, it is a tool one uses when one wants to make sense.
Ok, a tool if you prefer, and the atheist belief is that this tool can generate meaningful statements on the subject of gods.
In the same way, the theist believes that holy books, or perhaps their personal experience, are tools which can generate meaningful statements on the subject of god.
Competing claims. None of which can be proven.
The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Ok, a tool if you prefer, and the atheist belief is that this tool can generate meaningful statements on the subject of gods.
In the same way, the theist believes that holy books, or perhaps their personal experience, are tools which can generate meaningful statements on the subject of god.
Competing claims. None of which can be proven.
If a person is using books and personal experiences to draw conclusions they are still using reason to do that. You made a false equivalence here, to draw an actual equivalence would be for the theist to use faith as their tool. As I started this side bar off with: faith is a garbage tool.
In any case, I’m not making a claim about atheism or theism generating meaningful statements.
The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Nobody has faith in reason. People have very repeatable patterns of reliability that prove its efficacy. It is the foundation of all of science and knowledge. It is as “proven” a thing as here is. Zero faith needed.
This is another false equivalency, where you have used “faith” in two different ways so that it appears faith is common to both theism and atheism. “Faith” is used in everyday speech to talk about reasonable confidence in something. People say they have faith in spouses, faith public transit system etc. “Faith” is also used as a basis for believing in something as when the theist is asked why they believe in god and they answer “faith”. It is given as a reason, which I’ve argued it is not.
This is an important distinction and let me make it clear that it is the latter usage that I am using and it is the latter usage that negates the point you make in the quoted portion.
So from my perspective my initial point stands, but please point out where ive failed to address a rebuttal you made if thats the case.
The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.
The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.
This is why a moderator is necessary. To keep those two things from derailing the discussion like every other time. Without one we are into the same old shit as before.
I predict no derailment. It would be a miracle (ha!) if the train ever leaves the station.
Quite so, it is a conclusion based on evidence, and having been concluded, by most folks is set aside.
I disagree. Weak atheism requires no consideration at all, and strong atheism is a rejection of the proposition 'God exists' for want of evidence. You cannot have evidence that God does not exist.
Reply to tim wood Ummm I've read the book? And seen a very good stage adaptation. Anyhoo, a quote, as Freud famously said, is sometimes just a quote. :|
180's opening shouldn't have been diverted by a weak opening by 3017, but should have just made out his case as if he had gone first.
The starting point of any inquiry is that everything (and its negation) might be logically possible. Then someone or another shows some reason or another why something is not possible, and so its negation is necessary. The question at hand is about whether or not atheism is logically possible, not whether it is definitely true. 180’s position is, of course, “I don’t see any reason why not”, because if he did see any reason why not then he wouldn’t hold that position. So everything really rests on 3017 offering some supposed reason why not, the merits of which can then be debated.
180 probably also has some reasons why theism isn’t possible, but that’s not the subject of this debate.
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
Count Timothy von IcarusJune 17, 2021 at 21:14#5522380 likes
I suppose by "prove" you mean the formal sense, rather than just convincing someone? That does seem like an impossible bar to meet.
I mean, you can't prove the material world exists, however I feel plenty of solid arguments can be made to convince someone it does. Maybe that's what should be aimed for.
The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.
Nobody has faith in reason. People have very repeatable patterns of reliability that prove its efficacy.
This is the common atheist error, the assumption that because reason is proven good for many things (agreed) it is therefore automatically qualified for everything. And because they hold this typically unexamined assumption, they see no need to inspect or challenge those qualifications.
And so, ok, let us reason together. Let us apply the very same degree of challenge we reasonably aim at theist authorities to atheist authorities. This process is often called intellectual honesty.
This is the common atheist error, the assumption that because reason is proven good for many things (agreed) it is therefore automatically qualified for everything. And because they hold this typically unexamined assumption, they see no need to inspect or challenge those qualifications.
I explicitly did not make that assumption. I said repeatable patterns of reliability. Thats true, reason has that and that reliability can be tested in real time, pretty easily. It is neither unexamined nor an assumption im afraid. This is not the same as saying it is “automatically” qualified for everything, you inserted the automatic part all on your own.
Also not true that it is a trait of atheism to not inspect or challenge the qualifications of reason, this is a human thing not an atheist thing.
And so, ok, let us reason together. Let us apply the very same degree of challenge we reasonably aim at theist authorities to atheist authorities. This process is often called intellectual honesty.
Im not sure what you mean but I’m game. Im not sure how much we actually disagree here, but I did notice you are somewhat cherry picking my posts for responses.
Ive been patient because you seem a decent fellow but since you mentioned intellectual honesty I would be remiss if I didn’t bring it up now. Please address my arguments instead of just making more of your own.
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
Not logically. One could say something like, 'There is no perfect, omnipotent God who would not allow a Holocaust."
Ya see you aren’t acting in good faith here. I made a number of points that you havn’t addressed, you have not been engaging with what Im saying. I pointed this out fairly plainly and your response was to ignore that as well.
Im done, but to show clearly which of us is not being intellectually honest here I will rebut your question:
Do you believe in Zeus? I hope not.
Well Zeus is a god and I’m happy to abandon reason for whatever method you used to determine that Zeus doesnt exist and apply it to all of them.
I made a number of points that you havn’t addressed
Please don't take it personally. I didn't respond to every point because I've already done so at least a billion times for 25 years. Everything you're saying, word for word straight out of the atheist dogma bible, endlessly repeated everywhere. Meaning no personal offense, really, just saying, nothing new here.
No its not (dogma), you are taking what Im saying and reframing it to these “typical” atheist responses and tilting at windmills and strawmen. Lol, I mean come on your mode of engagement is to ignore what I’m saying because you know it all already. Thats a neat way of not having to defend anything you say or points made against you.
Anyway, I din’t take it personally Im just not a fan of wasting my time. Since you already know everything on the matter I would imagine a waste of yours as well.
Glad we nipped that in the bud.
Lol, I never take gambling advise from anyone so all good.
god must be atheistJune 18, 2021 at 04:02#5523910 likes
A debate between 3017Amen and 180 Proof? This has got to be the funniest, most hilarious debate of the millenium. You might as well have pitted a sea mollusk and Frisbee, or a Christian and a Lion, or a San Francisco 49ers fan and a coat hanger against each other. But this will be funnier.
And they say philosophy is a dry, boring, non-juicy area of inquiry. How wrong they were!
@180 Proof I’ve located the post of yours that @3017amen is quoting, since you said you couldn’t find it:
[quote=180 Proof; https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543765]I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ???[/quote]
[quote=3017amen; https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543771]here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?
Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[/quote]
[quote=180 Proof;https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543775]No, but that will suffice for (A) weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend.[/quote]
So I think 3017 has taken it that you are willing to defend atheism as thus defined, and now he is asking you to do so.
You, however, also make the great point that he has yet to actually formulate an attack on that position, so there is as yet nothing to defend from.
3017, please see my earlier comment in this thread:
The starting point of any inquiry is that everything (and its negation) might be logically possible. Then someone or another shows some reason or another why something is not possible, and so its negation is necessary. The question at hand is about whether or not atheism is logically possible, not whether it is definitely true. 180’s position is, of course, “I don’t see any reason why not”, because if he did see any reason why not then he wouldn’t hold that position. So everything really rests on 3017 offering some supposed reason why not, the merits of which can then be debated.
180 probably also has some reasons why theism isn’t possible, but that’s not the subject of this debate.
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
This got me thinking about Darwin this morning, a man who lost his Christian belief in the face of facts. I was not raised in any religion at all, and was about 7 years of age when I first realised that people actually believed this stuff (the fundamental difference between Jesus and Superman). So for this brand of atheism -- clean atheism, perhaps -- there are no facts that lead one to conclude that there is no God, rather, as I said before, an absence of facts to conclude that there is one.
For a religious person, or an atheist more deeply embedded in a religious culture, facts such as those presenting themselves to Darwin can and do lead to a conclusion of no God.
I was not raised in any religion at all, and was about 7 years of age when I first realised that people actually believed this stuff (the fundamental difference between Jesus and Superman).
Strangely, I WAS raised in a religious family and it STILL took me by surprise some time during my growing-up when I realized that adults didn’t think of Jesus and Santa Claus the same way: stories you tell children as if they were true as a kind of game or moral lesson but not something grown-ups literally believe in.
My family gave me all kinds of religious fiction (as in, stories even the believers knew was fiction) that featured angels in modern times and prayer saving people via miracles, or events in ancient times featuring fantastic monsters defeated by righteous soldiers of God, that so far as I could tell was indistinguishable from urban or high fantasy respectively. So that probably (unintentionally on their part) helped me to categorize religious mythology in the same category as any avowedly fictional mythopoesis.
I suppose by "prove" you mean the formal sense, rather than just convincing someone? That does seem like an impossible bar to meet.
I'm not sure but the word "prove" seems to encompass both the rigor of deduction and the uncertainties of induction and abduction. Your objection seems unfounded and, may I add, too pedantic; nevertheless it's good to know that technically, "prove" is reserved for deduction. By the way what word would describe abductive and inductive inferences? Any ideas?
Atheism is simply accepting logic and reason over belief and experience. Even an atheist can experience religious-like feelings, awe, mystery and so on, but the key difference is that the atheist doesn't accept anything as true or logical until there are sufficient logical conclusions to be made. There doesn't have to be any evidence, even if it is prefered, that something is true, it basically has to be logical that it might be true and from that derives a hypothesis.
A common argument against atheists is that they need to prove everything beyond any kind of doubt while theists can believe whatever they want. But an atheist that doesn't have a logical foundation for a hypothesis isn't really an atheist anymore, he has belief.
An atheist doesn't have a lack of belief in God, there's nothing lacking, there's just no logical assumption that there is a God, so it's not even on the list. The only reason atheists speak and think about the concept of "God" is because theists have proposed such ideas in society.
In a blank slate of a world where there are none of the religions we have in the world today, but unexplained natural phenomena that previously were sources for many religious events, are explained logically, reasonably, and with science, i.e a world where we developed a scientific method before any religious explanations for events in nature around us: there wouldn't be any religions. The religious ideas today have their foundation in building upon previous generations beliefs all the way back to when someone wanted to understand why something like thunder happens, or why crops die. If there were no such sources and we already logically explained that thunder happens because of differences in temperature and moving air, while crops die because of infestations and stuff, there wouldn't be any supernatural phenomena that caused them and we wouldn't have such belief systems around it.
An atheist looks at the world as it is, disregard any previous "guesses" about anything, don't care for previous generations that can't logically explain anything and focus purely on what logic and reason can explain. It doesn't have to be proven beyond all doubt, it has to make sense.
Like ideas about quantum mechanics or possible string theories. We don't have much evidence of anything for that, but we have a lot of hypotheses that make sense, some are even so logical that we are already inventing technology using the phenomena we have discovered through those hypotheses, even without fully know how they work. But nothing of this is "belief", it's rooted in logic and reason.
So I think that the idea that atheism is "a lack of belief in God", is a bit misleading to the core of what atheism is. Because even if someone isn't believing in God, and starts to believe in ghosts, new age or other superstition/supernatural events, that aren't directly related to "God", they are still theists in the sense of belief. Atheists focus on logic and reason, they are closer to being immune to believing in anything that doesn't have a logical foundation underneath. And a belief system about God is at its core something that does not have a logical foundation and because much of the atheist movement has its modern roots in western society, where Christianity also has its roots, the idea that atheists lack a belief in God has become the norm explanation for atheism, which I don't think is accurate to what drives an atheist.
Reply to Christoffer I don't think that's entirely accurate but it is true for some atheists. There are, of course, many different kinds of atheist, with different approaches and views. Some believe in astrology and hold superstitions. Some are logical positivists. And many are untheorised. They don't really know why they don't believe in god (which is generally a cartoon conception), they just think it's nonsense. Atheism is not accepting the proposition that a god exists, and in some stronger cases it is believing that no god exists. It doesn't come with other presuppositions, unless the person is also a secular humanist or into philosophy.
Atheism is simply accepting logic and reason over belief and experience
Yes, agreed. The debate is a choice of which authority to reference.
The problem God thread philosophers on all sides face is that in centuries of such debate nobody on any side has been able to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority for this particular task.
The next problem is that nobody cares about that. :-)
God debates are like dancing. There's a series of steps that everyone has memorized, and it's fun to get together on the dance floor and do the dance yet again.
There's no crime in it. Life is short and fun is good. It's just not philosophy, that's all.
I don't think that's entirely accurate but it is true for some atheists. There are, of course, many different kinds of atheist, with different approaches and views. Some believe in astrology and magic.
This implies that atheism is only in opposition with the concept of "God" and the belief in one or a pantheon. But I wouldn't call someone who believes in astrology an atheist. It's the same kind of belief system, just not focused on the concept of God.
I agree that theism shouldn't be considered philosophy because philosophy should require reason and logic as the foundation. Atheism works in this sense since it's founded on thinking with reason and logic.
In philosophy, it's as if we have five people who are all claiming to be correct about five different topics. Four of them get questioned by a moderator, and they are forced to logically explain why they think they are correct. Every little detail of these four people's arguments is scrutinized to the core, chopping away until the most logical conclusions are made by each of these four people. The fifth person then claims something without any kind of rational logic behind it and the moderator of this event just says "ok". The other four ask why the fifth person didn't get the same kind of rational scrutiny and treatment and the moderator replies, he's a theist.
This is why I don't think irrational belief, religion, and theism have any place in philosophy. It's the very antithesis of what philosophy aims to do. Theism is like a bubble of philosophy, a playground for the special children where the rules are totally different and everyone else just has to accept it, occasionally invite them out of that bubble and accept that irrationality and lack of logic.
An atheist doesn't have a lack of belief in God, there's nothing lacking, there's just no logical assumption that there is a God, so it's not even on the list. The only reason atheists speak and think about the concept of "God" is because theists have proposed such ideas in society.
The problem is that "such ideas" are arguably, the foundation of society; and here's where the atheist must falter - short of an alternate higher power in which to invest ultimate authority. Science has not been allowed to step into that role; even while science describes a literal truth, and way of thinking that decentralises the divine mystery.
Had science been recognised as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine enlightenment over the past 400 years or so - we'd have both science and God as sources of authority; and knowing what's true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true, we'd be healthy, upright and prosperous.
But that's not what happened; and what we have, in some respects, is the worst of both worlds. The rationalising influence of science is blunted; merely serving to disenchant, and so undermining traditional bases of authority, without quite ushering in the scientific miracle of a rational development of resources - that ideally, would have occurred as (circumstantial) proof of divine benevolence.
Consequently, IMO - anyone less than a Marxist radical must surely err on the side of agnosticism; not least because, science doesn't actually rule out the existence of God. Strictly speaking, opinion aside - agnosticism is a rightful epistemic status, and always has been. No-one really knows! Hence the mystery!
the idea that atheists lack a belief in God has become the norm explanation for atheism, which I don't think is accurate to what drives an atheist.
At the very least, the concept of God is an important social and political phenomena, the atheist would declare false without proof for what reason? I wonder!
I agree that theism shouldn't be considered philosophy because philosophy should require reason and logic as the foundation. Atheism works in this sense since it's founded on thinking with reason and logic.
Any method which declines to challenge it's own fundamental assumptions is not philosophy, but instead merely ideology. It's not reason and logic to refuse to examine and challenge the qualifications of reason and logic.
Every little detail of these four people's arguments is scrutinized to the core
Except that it's not. In atheism the core (blind faith in reason) is very rarely touched. Most atheists don't even know it's there. There's typically far more doubt honestly expressed in theism than in atheism.
Count Timothy von IcarusJune 18, 2021 at 11:17#5524700 likes
Not trying to be pedantic. The claim that the ontological proof was the only surviving one was what made me think we were talking about deduction alone.
There are other decent(ish) arguments that don't rely on deduction. For example, the Anthropic Principal. Forces in the universe are seemingly arbitrary in their values (e.g. gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, the speed of light). However, tweak these a bit and intelligent life bearing any resemblance to us becomes impossible. Planets become impossible. We have a razor thin band of possibilities for these arbitrary values to take or the universe can't support multicellular life.
Since we have no observations of other universes to consider as data, this is merely an (IMO a decent) appeal by analogy. Things don't end up perfectly ordered elsewhere in nature, why should they at the fundemental level. It's like stumbling across a perfectly square copse of trees in the woods; sure it could be chance, but chance doesn't tend to create these sorts of things. Why should there be unchanging laws in the first place? These are all appeals to the idea of the universe being designed for life. If these constants don't all get set precisely, you don't get life, but they are all set precisely. However, this isn't deductive, and it's not based on an analysis of compatible data of multiple universes' laws, which we'll never have, but rather an inductive argument based on the chaos of most natural phenomenon, and the unchanging fixed nature of the fundemental laws. Still, it's a problem that theists and simulation theory advocates have a better answer to at the moment.
This is why I don't think irrational belief, religion, and theism have any place in philosophy. It's the very antithesis of what philosophy aims to do.
First, atheists typically assume that theism is nothing but a pile of ideological assertions, thus revealing the ignorance which prevents them from being effective critics. This misunderstanding is particularly RAMPANT on philosophy forums.
Next, generally speaking, taken as a whole, religion is more realistic than atheism about the human condition, and more compassionate in serving that reality. This not because theists are smarter, but only because they've been doing their thing far longer. Here's the evidence...
To this day, religion continues to thrive in every time and place. It's been doing so for thousands of years. That is, religion is a "creature" very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Natural selection is demonstrating the power of religion to anyone willing to listen to the evidence.
This implies that atheism is only in opposition with the concept of "God" and the belief in one or a pantheon. But I wouldn't call someone who believes in astrology an atheist. It's the same kind of belief system, just not focused on the concept of God.
In my view you make a common mistake by trying to include a whole world view under the rubric of atheism. It only pertains to theism, nothing more. Over 30 years I've certainly met more than my share of atheists who believe in fortune telling and astrology. The idea that logic or reason is involved is a myth. This pertains to those atheists who are theorised.
Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief?
Logical positivism is inconsistent.
And most atheists do not live their lives purely by logic and reason. That's impossible.
And the believers in rationality just assume rationality can explain everything. Whence and why this faith?
The problem is that "such ideas" are arguably, the foundation of society; and here's where the atheist must falter - short of an alternate higher power in which to invest ultimate authority.
I have not problem living as an atheist in a society that doesn't rely as much upon any religion or God as nations like the US does. Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. It's the Nietzchian fear of nihilism. But in a society that isn't as heavily relying on God or religion, society works anyway. In Sweden, there's not a lot of Christianity as any kind of foundation. Traditions like Christmas and Easter aren't celebrated with any God "present", but instead celebrated for celebration's sake, no underlying values are forced upon the people, they celebrate as a chance to have a good time with their friends and family. Religion has disappeared from the celebration and it has become something else, only having words linger from the religious roots.
So there's no reason for any religious foundation at all. Moral philosophy can easily replace commandments, and probably do a better job at it since it's always under scrutiny without being called heresy.
The only people who think that a society can't exist without a religious foundation, are the ones within such a religious framework. It's a usual theist argument that society needs religion and faith, but every time we have true atheism as the foundation in society, it's actually a lot more peaceful and rational. The common counterargument from theists then points out Leninist and Stalinist communism as an example of atheistic societies, but this is just false. Not only is it a simplification of Marxism, since Lenin and Stalin corrupted those ideas, but the key factor is that both Stalin and Lenin replaced God as a religious figure.
science doesn't actually rule out the existence of God.
As I've said, atheism is about logical reasoning as a foundation, not proving God's lack of existence. If anything, in philosophy, the burden of proof is on the theist side and has been forever. Agnosticism acknowledges the possible existence of God, without any logical reasoning behind it, that's not atheism. Which is a key point as to why I say that atheism has nothing to do with a lack of belief, it has to do with logic, reason, and being rational as a foundation. Anything supernatural, religious or similar isn't even on the table for atheists because there's no rational reasoning behind it. Being agnostic requires you to entertain a part of faith in God as a possibility, which doesn't exist for an atheist.
Any method which declines to challenge it's own fundamental assumptions is not philosophy, but instead merely ideology. It's not reason and logic to refuse to examine and challenge the qualifications of reason and logic.
That's what epistemology is. The true philosophical antithesis of theism.
In atheism the core (blind faith in reason) is very rarely touched. Most atheists don't even know it's there. There's typically far more doubt honestly expressed in theism than in atheism.
No, because everything is eventually explained by "God" or religion in some way. "Blind faith in reason" also doesn't exist, it's the very foundation of epistemology to question how we reason. To say that atheists have blind faith in reason is straw-manning the concept of atheism.
religion is more realistic than atheism about the human condition, and more compassionate in serving that reality. This not because theists are smarter, but only because they've been doing their thing far longer.
It's only realistic for primal people that try to figure out the world without any way of rationally explain what is happening around them. That theists have been doing it for far longer is also a fallacy and not in any support of any conclusion you make. We can actually say that rational reasoning is older since most current religions are younger than western philosophy. But the people of power in religion throughout history snuffed out anyone challenging that power. This is why the world has moved towards wide atheistic adoption in such a short span of time because the enlightenment era was more powerful than the church and other religious institutions. By 2035 it's expected by metrics that over half the world's population will be atheists. So if religion and theism is more "correct" for the human condition, why have the atheistic worldview exploded in numbers, and will continue exponentially? When lifting the fact that this is happening globally in many different religions and worldviews, it kind of speaks to the opposite of what you are saying about the "human condition".
Maybe it's just that religion is easier to use to control people's knowledge and also is easier to adopt when there's no explanation for an unexplained event. So in a world where these things were more common, religion was more common. In the age of reason we live in today, the old truths start to crumble easily.
Here's the evidence...
To this day, religion continues to thrive in every time and place. It's been doing so for thousands of years. That is, religion is a "creature" very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Natural selection is demonstrating the power of religion to anyone willing to listen to the evidence.
This is not evidence at all. As per what wrote above. People are prone to pattern-seeking in their environment, we are easily fooled by what we don't know. That doesn't mean we are "made for religion", it just means we are stupid until we find mental tools to bypass those biases and fallacies when thinking of the world. And we did, it took some thousands of years to fine-tune those tools and we've just begun to use them. The enlightenment era was like inventing the wheel, we invented rational tools that wiped away the necessity for religious views as factual.
In my view you make a common mistake by trying to include a whole world view under the rubric of atheism. It only pertains to theism, nothing more. Over 30 years I've certainly met more than my share of atheists who believe in fortune telling and astrology. The idea that logic or reason is involved is a myth. It pertains to those atheists who are theorised.
If someone believes in something in the same way as believing in God, then however you define atheism it fails to apply to them. Lack of belief? Nope, they believe in astrology and fortune-telling. Reason and logic as a foundation? No, they don't question the legitimacy of astrology and fortune-telling.
Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. It's like racists who say "I'm not a racist" when they clearly are. I don't see a reason to muddy the waters of what defines an atheist, because that's a smörgårdsbord for theists to muddy the waters of definitions.
If we are to have a clear definition of atheism it needs to be what I propose. Anyone who believes in something without any logic or rational reasoning for it, is simply not an atheist. Otherwise, what would an atheist be called in contrast with the concept of the spaghetti monster? I can't be an atheist and believe in that. Atheism is a consolidation of all reason and logic against any kind of belief in something that doesn't have that as a foundation, regardless of God or fortune-telling nonsense.
And most atheists do not live their lives purely by logic and reason. That's impossible.
No, it's not. Having a hypothesis is not having belief. If I say I "believe" in something, I do it because I have sufficient data supporting that there's significant reason to do so.
It's only impossible for those who have been taught otherwise. I have no problem living my life based on logic and reason. It doesn't change that I can feel emotions and have experiences that are profound, I just don't apply fantasy concepts to those things. If people grow up with religious concepts I understand that this is a problematic way of thinking, but our upbringing wires our brains and unwiring them is not easy at all. Saying that atheists can't live by logic and reason is like saying people can't live by religious ideas, they can, and so can atheists live by not applying fantasy to the unkown.
And the believers in rationality just assume rationality can explain everything. Whence and why this faith?
No, they don't, they accept that there are things yet to be explained, but they don't produce fantasies to explain things for them before they have any evidence of truth or logic for a deduction. They accept things to be unknown. We don't know what dark matter is, we've seen a presence of something. A theist might conjure up fantasies that dark matter is God for some reason, but an atheist just accepts that we don't know yet what dark matter is. Both can look at the dark matter as mysterious, but one of them doesn't jump to conclusions.
How you describe rationality and reason is the common strawmanning that theists do in order to undermine the legality of atheistic concepts. But there are no problems living with rational thought, reason, and logic. None.
@Christoffer Epistemology you say? Is there any agreement or conclusions in that field of philosophy?
If not,your whole post is moot.
And to be honest,you sound just as dogmatic and ill informed as a fundamentalist.
Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists.
You are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Atheism is without theism. It pertains to one claim only (theism) and is not a system. It says nothing about any other irrational beliefs the person might hold. You're conflating a belief with an epistemology. The ideal atheist may well be a secular humanist who privileges reason and holds to no superstition but that is a wholly separate matter.
Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon.
Most of the critiques of religion arise right out of a moralism which was given to western culture by the Jews. The Christians then became the leading salesmen of such moralism (not to be confused with being morally superior). So many atheists think they can just pull the plug and walk away from these thousands of years of history. It doesn't work that way.
An example...
I was raised Catholic. I made the choice to leave the church over 50 years ago. I had the option, the choice, to stop attending services, and be a critic of the Vatican etc. That much we can do.
But I can't stop thinking like a Catholic, that is, being interested in the kinds of things Catholics are interested in (thus my comments here) because that doesn't arise from my personal choice, but from many centuries of Catholic DNA up my family tree. That's built in. We don't just turn it off with the flip of a switch.
Epistemology you say? Is there any agreement or conclusions in that field of philosophy?
If not,your whole post is moot.
And to be honest,you sound just as dogmatic and ill informed as a fundamentalist.
I don't see an argument here? Just, "oh, you don't have any answers within epistemology, so you are wrong", and "you are just an ill-informed fundamentalist."
I don't care how I sound or people view me. Make your argument.
You don't seem to know what the true Scotsman fallacy is. If I define atheism as having a foundation of logic and rational reasoning instead of just a lack of belief in God, that incorporates everyone with a belief that doesn't have a logical foundation for it. Hence, it includes these people. The Scotsman fallacy is if I just say "they aren't true atheists" and don't provide any foundation for that claim, which I have.
Atheism is without theism. It says nothing about any other irrational beliefs the person might hold.
"It says"? What says? The dictionary? If I question the common definition or layman definition of atheism as being incomplete and include all types of belief and not just God in the equation, then who cares what "it says". I say, I question and I argued for it. What you do is the same kind of "bible says" argument here. But about atheism.
The ideal atheist may well be someone who privileges reason and holds to no superstition but that is a wholly separate matter.
The ideal atheist is in my argument the normal atheist. People are prone to label themselves however they want. But if someone says they're now an atheist when stopping to worship god but starts to worship dead deities, new age, or fortune-telling, they are not really doing anything but replacing one faith with another. It doesn't work when defining what atheism is.
Most of the critiques of religion arise right out of a moralism which was given to western culture by the Jews. The Christians then became the leading salesmen of such moralism (not to be confused with being morally superior). So many atheists think they can just pull the plug and walk away from these thousands of years of history. It doesn't work that way.
No, they can't, we all live under the weight of history, good or bad. But what does that prove? You basically just say that we are a product of history. Ok, so what? Doesn't mean that moral philosophy isn't better than morality from a religious text. It more or less means that we ditch the books and find out for real what was good or bad in old teachings, or invent new ones where bad and old ones lacked.
But I can't stop thinking like a Catholic, that is, being interested in the kinds of things Catholics are interested in (thus my comments here) because that doesn't arise from my personal choice, but from many centuries of Catholic DNA up my family tree. That's built in. We don't just turn it off with the flip of a switch.
This I absolutely agree with. This is why I think it's good that the bloody history of religion is going out the door so that new generations can grow out without being programmed into this. But it also doesn't mean that we lose history. We can find interest in the old pantheons of the greek and those stories fine, we can find the pantheon of the Edda to be wonderful, without having belief in those things. The same is true about Christianity, Islam etc. Nothing of these religions will be lost, or erased. I think that we might even have more appreciation for the cultural mark on history if we leave the faith behind. I'm neither Christian or Muslim, but when I was in the Anna Sofia mosque in Istanbul, it was a profound experience seeing Christian and Islam design and art in that vast architecture. The experience can be enormous even if faith and belief in God is gone.
@Christoffer Epistemology has no foundations,no conclusions. So you just have faith in reason.
In reality you are worshipping the ideological biographies of dead philosophers.
Epistemology has no foundations,no conclusions. So you just have faith in reason.
In reality you are worshipping the ideological biographies of dead philosophers.
You make no sense now. I question how much you actually know about philosophy.
@Christoffer Typical ad hom clichéd response.
Where is the epistemological justification for rationality?
Have you not read your plato? The meno?
Justified true belief stands on an infinite regress unless you have axioms. And what are these axioms and are they
correct or ideological?
Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief
In epistemology, that's much of what the main questions are about. It examines how we know things, how we can be certain. In any attempt, within an epistemological discussion, to try and justify experience and belief as being superior to reason and logic, it fails. It's the answer to your question.
Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. It's the Nietzchian fear of nihilism.
All civilisations are built on religious foundations; because attributing moral authority to God, is how hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form the first multi-tribal societies - about 35,000 years after we find evidence of truly human intelligence in the archaeological record.
This was site of Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - not the strong fooled by the weak, but a translation from morality inherent to the structural relations of the kinship tribe, to objectivised social values, attributed to God. Thus, the natural obligation upon anyone hacking away at the pillars of moral authority is that they have some adequate alternative - and this politically correct secular relativism is neither one thing nor another.
The only people who think that a society can't exist without a religious foundation, are the ones within such a religious framework. It's a usual theist argument that society needs religion and faith, but every time we have true atheism as the foundation in society, it's actually a lot more peaceful and rational. The common counterargument from theists then points out Leninist and Stalinist communism as an example of atheistic societies, but this is just false. Not only is it a simplification of Marxism, since Lenin and Stalin corrupted those ideas, but the key factor is that both Stalin and Lenin replaced God as a religious figure.
I would raise Stalin and Mao as examples of atheist societies butchering their populations on a scale that make Hitler look like an amateur genocidal nutter! Exactly that, and they're actual examples - to compare to your purely hypothetical atheist societies, you claim are always more peaceful. Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment?
As I've said, atheism is about logical reasoning as a foundation, not proving God's lack of existence. If anything, in philosophy, the burden of proof is on the theist side and has been forever.
That's some myopic logic, don't you think? I cannot accept that's how this question presents itself to people. I think maybe, that's how you post-rationalise your deeper motives, but I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God, and so concluding "the burden proof is with the theist, and that shall be an end of the matter!" Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function!
What proof are you talking about? You asked if there were anything that "examines" reason and logic, if that is the foundation for atheism. And the answer is epistemology. What proof is it you are after?
This was site of Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - not the strong fooled by the weak, but a translation from morality inherent to the structural relations of the kinship tribe, to objectivised social values, attributed to God. Thus, the natural obligation upon anyone hacking away at the pillars of moral authority is that they have some adequate alternative - and this politically correct secular relativism is neither one thing nor another.
Nietzsche's inversion of values refers to how Christianity reverses the natural into the opposite. It stems from his contempt for Christianity. Stating the moral system is based on "the contempt of man". The fear I'm referring to is the fear that when a structural moral system is dismantled, however faulty it is, will eventually create a great nihilism within the people if they do not actively examine ethics and form new systems in its place. And what have we've been doing throughout the 20th century? It's exactly this. It was even fueled by the examination of moral decay in Nazi Germany. Almost the entire part of post-WWII philosophy around ethics has revolved around figuring that shit out.
I would raise Stalin and Mao as examples of atheist societies butchering their populations on a scale that make Hitler look like an amateur genocidal nutter! Exactly that, and they're actual examples - to compare to your purely hypothetical atheist societies, you claim are always more peaceful. Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment?
Here comes the classic guilt by association that is such a drag to always have to explain. The Stalins and Lenins and communist leaders who conducted murder and terror on their people did so under a kind of religious worship of themselves. They didn't build upon an atheist foundation, they built their society around themselves. These are dictators who don't have much to do with Marxism or atheism. Narcissistic personalities who brainwashed their people into a pseudo-religious politic surrounding themselves as deities. Much like how North Korea and Kim Jong Un act right now. I don't see much atheism going around these people. The only thing is that they don't have any old religions present, but that's not the same as an atheistic foundation for their society. I even touched upon this in this very thread in a previous post that you might have missed.
Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment?
So this becomes the guilt by association. The classic theist argument that because they claimed to be atheists or built upon it, therefor atheistic societies are evil. It's a stupefyingly bad conclusion that is a giant fallacy. Check how heavily secular societies in the world today fare against heavily religious ones, there's your answer and data.
As University of London professor Stephen Law has observed, “if declining levels of religiosity were the main cause of…social ills, we should expect those countries that are now the least religious to have the greatest problems. The reverse is true."
That's some myopic logic, don't you think? I cannot accept that's how this question presents itself to people. I think maybe, that's how you post-rationalise your deeper motives, but I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God, and so concluding "the burden proof is with the theist, and that shall be an end of the matter!" Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function!
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Otherwise I will, in classic terms, claim there's a teapot revolving around the sun between Venus and Mercury. You can't say there's not, you have to prove there's no teapot there! Burden of proof is on the one claiming something, claiming gods existence needs to be proven, the burden of proof is still on theists making claims that they can't prove. This is basic stuff.
I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God
Not in nations that are heavily religious, which I would say even the US is considered to be. In nations like Sweden, many grow up secular, without any concepts of God other than fairy tale concepts of the bible in the same manner as pantheon stories of the Greeks. So what you imagine is irrelevant, we have secular nations in the world where God isn't as common as in religious countries so the concepts in epistemology can definitely come before any concept of God. What you describe is just a projection of your own situation, not the truth.
Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function!
I understand its function, where it comes from, how religion and belief evolved, but God and religion is still irrelevant to humanity if we have good non-religious ethics system in place (which we have) and live our lives with self-reflection, skepticism, and a sense of logic and rational reasoning.
The concept of it being necessary is only true for those who cannot imagine a society without it. But some people live their life without it, both on the micro and macro level. This is an undeniable fact. I live my life like this, I have friends living their life like this, and Sweden is considered a secular nation with a very high quality of life. Compare that to heavily religious nations in the world. Check the link I provided.
It's not wise to overvalue the importance of religion without knowing how secular and less religious societies fare.
The proof from epistemology that justifies reason as being true.
"Justifies reason as being true"? Why are you changing the meaning of what I write? What truth?
You asked:
Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief
Whenever you go into epistemology and ask if belief and experience are superior to logic and reason, how would you create such an argument? If you claim this, then please make an epistemological argument in support of it.
let's go
p1. Unsupported belief leads to more unknown consequences.
p2 Supported belief leads to more known consequences.
p3 Unknown consequences have a higher tendency for suffering.
p4 Known consequences have a higher tendency to suppress suffering.
Conclusion: Unsupported beliefs have a higher tendency to cause suffering. Supported beliefs have a higher tendency to suppress suffering.
We could go on with arguments like this but the point is that if you go through epistemological philosophy, there's little support for belief and experience as being superior sources for any kind of decision. It's like basic philosophy to know this. It flows through epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. It's the most foundational idea in philosophy, the foundation for deduction, induction etc. There's rarely any room for belief and experience in any philosophical arguments because they are essentially biases and fallacies at their core.
Please prove that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions. Thank you.
Human reason is how we know facts about the world and universe, the very reason you are able to write on a machine right now is because of this. The proof is in the pudding, in the very existence of humanity's achievements. None of this is a result of religion or belief, they're a result of logic, reason, inventions through science.
So if that is true, which we have the world around as proof for, then if we ask what has the highest potential to answer or address the largest of questions we have, is that then religion, belief, and faith? By any logic of this, no. People can find comfort in religion and faith, but not address the questions in any knowledgeable way.
As an example, the nature of life, evolution, physics, and how the universe works are major, huge questions that for many thousands of years were only explained by religion. But with general relativity, Darwin and with modern experiments and tests confirming them over and over, we have essentially answered a lot of questions that were once "large".
So, is human reason, logic etc. qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions? If by meaningful you mean to comfort you, no, fantasies and fairy tales can do that if you don't find meaning in truth and facts, but for anyone that finds meaning in truth and facts, yes, it is absolutely superior to any reasoning through religion or faith. It's what much of the world we live in is built upon.
Faith doesn't start my electric car. It doesn't achieve major shifts in the quality of life. The house I live in is a result of many hundred years of innovation based in reasoning and my good quality of life is a result of all of that, not religion. By answering some of the largest questions, we also produce meaningful consequences for our lives.
So, please disprove and then prove that religion does the same. Especially in regard to how institutionalized religion fought back against human innovation and rational thought until the enlightenment era started to give them the middle finger.
Nietzsche's inversion of values refers to how Christianity reverses the natural into the opposite. It stems from his contempt for Christianity.
Nietzsche was wrong. Nihilism is false. Man in a state of nature was not an amoral, self serving brute - and we can know this because our species survived, generation after generation, raising children - for millions of years. Homo sapiens is a moral creature.
There was an inversion of values - but it wasn't the strong fooled by the weak. It was the difference between hunter gatherer tribal morality - and the morality necessary to multi tribal society. Religion is the first politics - and philosophy, law and economics. Faith is required because of the social significance of the concept; not because of its apparent truth or eminent provability. Indeed, religion seems to go out of its way to stretch credulity! Why? Because belief serves a purpose - and arguably, it's an important purpose that's been displaced without being replaced.
If you accept that the concept of God serves this important purpose - and you may well recognise that it has done, but argue now - philosophy, politics, law, economics have become wholly adequate alternate sources of authoritative value in themselves, as you say here:
God and religion is still irrelevant to humanity if we have good non-religious ethics system in place (which we have) and live our lives with self-reflection, skepticism, and a sense of logic and rational reasoning.
It's not that I'd disagree; per se - but would just point out that humankind is barrelling toward extinction - while the Amish, by comparison - could go on raising barns forever. Their way of life is sustainable, while ours isn't. And that unsustainability, I would argue - is the consequence of a mistaken relationship between religion and science, that is in turn the author of your mistaken relationship to God.
Given apparent design in nature, God is a credible hypothesis explaining existence; the first cause argument is about as reasonable as, and not exclusive of the big bang. You would not conclude an hypothesis is false, simply because it had not been proven true. Epistemically, you'd be agnostic with regard to the validity of the hypothesis - whereas, you positively claim to know there's no God.
I'm asking how you prove reason is true?
You haven't shown reason is superior to experience. You have just listed some assertions.
Logic rests on non provable axioms. Its just that you feel they are justified. Same as religion. From feelings.
Can we have the moderators check for low-quality posts? I'm not sure how to define it anymore.
Nietzsche was wrong. Nihilism is false. Man in a state of nature was not an amoral, self serving brute - and we can know this because our species survived, generation after generation, raising children - for millions of years. Homo sapiens is a moral creature.
I didn't say he was right, psychology has already proven basic morality can arise without any religion or heavy rationalization about ethics. Why I brought up his fear of nihilism is that theists usually show this fear. It's why they always bring up Lenin and Stalin as (ridiculous) examples of how atheism fails as a foundation. The core is that nihilism out no belief and faith leads to murder. It's the same reason why pseudo-philosophers like Jordan Peterson claim that a true atheist is a murderer because he has no morals.
I used it as an example of the absurdity that theists possess when fearing a world built on atheism.
Faith is required because of the social significance of the concept; not because of its apparent truth or eminent provability. Indeed, religion seems to go out of its way to stretch credulity! Why? Because belief serves a purpose - and arguably, it's an important purpose that's been displaced without being replaced.
It has no or serves any purpose anymore. This is the point. In a large society where there are no clear explanations for anything and moral philosophy isn't a thing, there has to be some kind of agreement between people to follow or for them to explain things that force great sorrows onto them. So it makes sense how religion starts, but that doesn't mean it has any purpose existing when rational reasoning and logic have taken its place. We don't need religion to explain things anymore, so the purpose of religion is gone now. We can use methods from religion, such as meditation, as there are physical effects on our well-being that we get out of it, but the faith and belief are gone. It has no meaning when we have other methods and tools to explain the unexplainable or can be calm in accepting something as unknown until we know more.
The only purpose of belief is the psychological factor, how it can calm certain people. But I can't see how that can't be replaced by meditation and other forms of practice. Most of the time, people who need the relief of faith just have bad mentors who can't articulate support or guidance without the concept of faith intertwined.
It's not that I disagree; per se - but would just point out that humankind is barrelling toward extinction
By what measurement are we doing that? Apart from insane politicians with the hand on the button and capitalist scumbags who rather burn the world for a profit, there's little to support the world getting worse. Quality of life is increasing around the world. To say that humankind is barrelling toward extinction needs some supporting data.
Their way of life is sustainable, while ours isn't. And that unsustainability, I would argue - is the consequence of a mistaken relationship between religion and science, that is in turn the author of your mistaken relationship to God.
Unsupported assumptions. Where's the data that they would survive and we won't? And why would that have anything to do with a relationship between science and religion? Nothing of what you write here has any substance, it's just "end is nigh" speculation without substance.
Given apparent design in nature, God is a credible hypothesis explaining existence; the first cause argument is about as reasonable as, and not exclusive of the big bang.
Oh no, the old first cause argument. It's disproven all the time without theists caring for the lack of logic. First cause doesn't point to any God at all. It points to there being a starting point, something that kickstarted the dominos, but that could be an interdimensional rock of unknown material as well, which is as far from "God" as you can get. And you explain nature as designed and therefor there must be a God and... got damn it, there's no logic here, there's nothing to support any of what you are writing now and you're just proving my point of the illogical fallacy and biased nature of theists. It's not philosophy, it's a mockery of philosophy to just puke words about connections between nature and God and first cause.
I don't have to make an argument anymore you are proving my point yourself.
Epistemically, you'd be agnostic with regard to the validity of the hypothesis - whereas, you positively claim to know there's no God.
There's a teapot between Mercury and Venus and you can't prove me wrong! And if you can't prove me wrong then I am right. Why are we still tolerating this kind of stupidity in philosophy? I don't know. The burden of proof is on you to prove God's existence. I cannot have a burden of proof to disprove something that isn't first proven. I must provide evidence for a teapot between Venus and Mercury before I can claim it to be true, and then you have the burden of proof to prove that wrong. But I can't demand that you need to disprove me if I've provided no proof to you. This is like kindergarten-level philosophy. This is why I can't take theists seriously and why I don't think theism should be considered philosophy, it disregards everything that is a foundation for philosophical praxis, and for some unknown reason, it is tolerated. For me, this is all evangelistic nonsense that has no place in contemporary philosophy. Let the theists play in their bubble called something else than philosophy.
Given the affirmative stance you've taken with respect to the debate proposition, you must demonstrate that "my atheism" is not logical (i.e. not valid). On other hand, in order to defeat the proposition at issue, I must express "my atheism"s" logical form only to show its validity and not to demonstrate that its conclusions are also sound (i.e. true). It's not "my preference", 3017, but what the terms of the debate require. (180 Proof)
180 has given his argument valid logical form. Of course the argument is empty. As they are both aware, valid does not mean sound. But note that 180 inserts "not valid" as a parenthesis. It is still up to 3017 to demonstrate that the major premise is not only false but illogical. It remains to be seen if or how he will do this.
Strangely, I WAS raised in a religious family and it STILL took me by surprise some time during my growing-up when I realized that adults didn’t think of Jesus and Santa Claus the same way: stories you tell children as if they were true as a kind of game or moral lesson but not something grown-ups literally believe in.
My family gave me all kinds of religious fiction (as in, stories even the believers knew was fiction) that featured angels in modern times and prayer saving people via miracles, or events in ancient times featuring fantastic monsters defeated by righteous soldiers of God, that so far as I could tell was indistinguishable from urban or high fantasy respectively. So that probably (unintentionally on their part) helped me to categorize religious mythology in the same category as any avowedly fictional mythopoesis.
Ah now that's interesting. I wonder how common this is.
An appeal to authority from a fundamentalist atheist.
No priestly irony here!
Please continue with the low-quality posts. You add nothing to the discussion and no real counterarguments. I refer you to previously written posts to produce some valid counter arguments before putting in any more time on your discussion.
So your counterargument is that you don't want to? The point is that burden of proof is on the one claiming something. You claim the existence of God, then the burden of proof is on you. If you don't even know Russell's teapot I understand why you are confused, but it proves my point even better. In contemporary philosophy, theism is a joke. The scrutiny required for the level of philosophy done today requires much more than theists can manage to provide.
Ah now that's interesting. I wonder how common this is.
That's me, too. My parents would play the Christmas/Easter game long after they knew that I knew where the presents/Easter eggs really came from. I just assumed that was the same sort activity. It's not quite as simple, as at some point in my mental development I must have learned to distinguish fact from fiction. For example, I remember "praying" (say, asking God to help me pass a test, or something) before falling asleep, without believing that anyone actually listened. That was just the shape of my anxiety. A bit like knocking on wood, if you know what I mean. That behaviour fell away as I grew older, but there was never a moment when I "stopped believing". It feels more like a slow differentiation process between fact and fiction, and the distinction growing more important as I grew older. There was definitely a period where I slowly (not all at once) realised, wait, they're serious. I remember fretting about telling my parents that I don't believe. I don't remember a moment when I stopped believing. All that is just an ex-post narrative; these are early memories and unreliable. But I definitely grew into atheism through exposure to theism. Theism just didn't stick, and I had to learn to live with it not sticking: going to church and being bored, making up stuff to confess just so I have something to say, saying sappy stuff during preparation for confirmation. Oddly enough, as a teenager (definitely during confirmation preparation), I was open about being atheist, but nobody made life hard for me (even priests seemed more intrigued than anything else). I wonder if people were hoping for fake-it-unti-you-make-it? I can't ever remember having any sort of disadvantage for being an atheist (I'm Austrian, for what it's worth. Roughly 70 % Roman Catholics when I was a child, I think.)
So your counterargument is that you don't want to? The point is that burden of proof is on the one claiming something. You claim the existence of God, then the burden of proof is on you. If you don't even know Russell's teapot I understand why you are confused, but it proves my point even better. In contemporary philosophy, theism is a joke. The scrutiny required for the level of philosophy done today requires much more than theists can manage to provide.
I'm no stranger to flying spaghetti monsters, and the like. And I'm not a theist. Do try to keep up! I'm agnostic, questioning your atheism. You introduced 'what theists think' as a strawman; rather than taking on the more challenging task of proving your atheist knowledge claim, when really, if your position is based in a logical epistemology, you should admit you don't know! Consequently, I feel entitled to suggest that your atheism is motivated, and I wonder by what? You seem very keen to defend communism!
Reply to Dawnstorm Interesting, thank you. You did remind me, I wasn't completely divorced from the influence of religion as a child. My school, while a state school, was very Christian, with Bible stories, daily prayers, hymns, etc. And we lived around the corner from a Mormon church. My grandfather had tried to enroll his family into it, even tried to move them to Utah (for the pusseh) before I was born. Two elders used to come to our house (I actually believed for a long time I'd killed one of them). They asked me once if I said my prayers and I said yes because we did that at school.
With hindsight I'm wondering why it was such a shock when my best friend told me he believed in God. But I think you and Pfhorrest are both a testament to the way children can absorb ritual and mythology.
I'm thinking about Evelyn Waugh's tremendous novel Brideshead Revisited. In case you haven't read it, it's anti-atheist stance is very peculiar for focussing on the comfort of religious ritual in the face of the abject stupidity of theology. Waugh (himself a liberal, intellectual Christian) wasn't denying that the content of Christianity is bunkum, but that the solace of its artefacts and gestures was negligible.
Maybe that accounts for some of the difference. For us, a tabernacle just isn't very emotive.
I can't ever remember having any sort of disadvantage for being an atheist (I'm Austrian, for what it's worth. Roughly 70 % Roman Catholics when I was a child, I think.)
In the west, anti-atheist sentiment seems to me an American thing. I dare say it would be harder to run for government here in the UK if you were openly an atheist, but you'd not lose the job if the press found it out. Weirdly the one place where Western anti-atheist is the norm has the least Christian Christians in the world.
3017 is having a very hard time of it. He is trying to avoid his responsibility to show what he had first claimed he would show, that atheism is illogical. He has no argument to back it up and is trying to shift the burden of proof. To use his own boxing analogy, rather than the knock out he promised to deliver, he is clenching.
180 calls 3017 a limp dick, finally getting some good insults. :clap:
[quote=3017] Here's the classic ontological argument based upon the same logico-deductive reasoning:
1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.[/quote]
This seems very odd reasoning because no one can even begin to imagine God. It’s like saying that someone can imagine the entire universe, but no more than the entire universe. There is more to the universe than any human being could begin to imagine.
Ok, looks like its done for. Short and worthless to all us spectators.
So lets take a poll, maybe a mod could make one in the OP of this thread.
Who won the debate? Sound off everyone.
My take is Amen didn’t show up to the debate. Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. That's what it looked like to me.
As I predicted, condescending and disingenuous was met with short patience and dismissal. Same old shit.
I was so hoping that we could get an honest discussion from Amen but we did not. He did declare himself the winner though which was pretty funny. Im sure we will be hearing about how it wasnt fair and 180 was the one who didnt show up and how atheist should try and calm down and think rationally and blah blah blah.
My take is Amen didn’t show up to the debate. Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. That's what it looked like to me.
Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate.
The event staged, seats set around the TV, popcorn buttered; the fighters enter the ring and proceed to dance around each other for the whole first round, feigning and fainting with extraordinary athletic ability and vigour, but without throwing a single substantive blow at risk of being hit; the crowd not as impressed with either of them, than each of them seems by the other!
Its pretty bizzare that he could conclude “we’ve” conceded to an even score based on whats in that thread. Private messages maybe?
Originally he said he won by TKO which is even more preposterous. His last comment was vomit inducing. Just gross.
Reply to DingoJones Hanover is being diplomatic to the point of absurdity. 3017 demands to go first, fails to present a case, 180 points this out, and Hanover calls it a draw?
Come on.
Edit: That was a bit unfair on Hangover. He called a forfeit, which 3017 thinks is a draw.
More evidence of the brilliance of 3017's thought processes. Not a good ad for theism, I say.
I think there were parameters about his role we aren’t privy to, limiting his responses.
The interesting part to me is how people like Amen cannot recognize how disingenuine they are being, blind to their dishonest engagement. What do you call that, and what do you say to them? Trying to help them see it is just seen as an attack, a mean angry atheist attack that…I don’t know I guess they feel justified acting like cunts in return?
Does Amen really think he acted fairly and in good faith in that? Its just so hard for me to believe he does yet its just as hard for me to believe someone would be so committed to trolling or-messing around.
Religion right? Straight up mind poison.
You don't seem to know what the true Scotsman fallacy is. If I define atheism as having a foundation of logic and rational reasoning instead of just a lack of belief in God, that incorporates everyone with a belief that doesn't have a logical foundation for it. Hence, it includes these people. The Scotsman fallacy is if I just say "they aren't true atheists" and don't provide any foundation for that claim, which I have.
Goodness. You are providing your definition of atheism which includes an epistemology and it sounds like you can see that. Your definition is more of an ideal atheist: as you see it.
A no true Scotsman fallacy happens when someone hears a description of the characteristics of X and argues that 'they're are not X' (because the description doesn't suit the person's preferred understanding and argument).
Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists.
You don't own the definition of atheism. If someone says they are an atheist and they don't believe in god, they are an atheist. Period. They may be an untheorized atheist, but so what? Atheism may have an ideal form (humanism and skepticism) but that's not what we were talking about.
About 50% of atheists I have met at freethinkers forums/events over 40 years and the like have no or little interest in logical foundations. They may be inchoate but they are still atheists. I was an atheist for 20 years before I ever examined reason and logic.
Having a debate about why so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow.
Having a debate about what so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow.
Because atheists are people and most people can’t really justify their positions.
Well stated post btw.
American Atheists definition of atheism: Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system
When the debate was set up, specific parameters were agreed upon, and I did indicate the moderator's role would be the same in the debate thread as any other thread, limited to enforcing the site guidelines. There were no violations there.
As a general matter, I also think community feedback is more effective and credible than authority declarations by staff. Whether i say something is bullshiit isn't any more critical than any other voice in the choir.
If everyone got their say and everything was exposed, then it was a good day.
But to make good on the debate that never was, I challenge @180 Proof to a duel! If yes, we'll iron out the details. 3017 will moderate it.
Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate.
I'm just happy that could never happen in this thread. Phew!! :-)
Reply to frank No, but the cat wouldn't let me sleep in, so there's that. And it's cold and windy and I really don't want to go out and muck out the chicken coup. So a good time to stay inside and trade insults with whomever is willing.
Reply to Banno
Ah. Well we're getting our climate change on over here.
The mosquitoes will rule.
god must be atheistJune 19, 2021 at 00:30#5530750 likes
I never followed the debate or the parallel lines. I just knew it must have been hilarious. In my books 3017Amen is dumber than a door knob, but he is full of "let's go, let's do it". His character is similar to that of Ratbert in the Dilbert comics. An innocent nincompoop, a naive happy-go-lucky guy.
180 Proof, on the other hand, has difficulty in speaking humanese, or else has an easy way of speaking his own language.
Pitting the two against each other had got to be a hoot. I did not even have to read one single solitary line in the debate to see that. I am still laughing, albeit inwardly, not outwardly.
I see you haven't had a lot to do with chickens. Except perhaps in the pot.
Count Timothy von IcarusJune 19, 2021 at 01:10#5531050 likes
This was the equivalent of watching a boxer go out with the strategy of bobbing and weaving so vigorously, without ever throwing a punch mind you, that they hoped their opponent would get dizzy and knock themselves out...
No, but the cat wouldn't let me sleep in, so there's that. And it's cold and windy and I really don't want to go out and muck out the chicken coup. So a good time to stay inside and trade insults with whomever is willing.
Your definition is more of an ideal atheist: as you see it.
I'm not only questioning theist's perspective and straw-manning of atheism, I'm also questioning many atheist's perspectives on defining it. If atheism is only about a lack of belief in a God or Gods, then what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with? Atheism is the closest definition of such a person and dividing it into "normal" atheists that can include absolute superstitious fanatics, with "ideal" atheists that are more close to the core of what atheism should be defined as, muddies the water and makes it very unclear as to how the opposing worldviews between atheism and theism work.
If we are talking about defining a concept, there are no real facts other than how society decides to define a concept. There's no "fact" that atheism is defined in a certain way, and possible it is defined differently in a heavily religious nation compared to a secular one. Dictionaries change all the time through cultural movements. When atheism was coined as a term, there was pretty much only the dichotomy of belief in God and a lack of belief in God. Today, if someone puts down tarot cards, starts fortune-telling in coffee stains, and wants to eat dirt to heal her aura, I don't think such a person can be attributed with the definition of atheist, regardless of what not-up-to-date dictionaries outlines.
A no true Scotsman fallacy happens when someone hears a description of the characteristics of X and argues that 'they're are not X' (because the description doesn't suit the person's preferred understanding and argument).
So how do you define someone who is living by reason, rationality, facts of the world, and logic? As opposed to living with pure unsupported belief? Because if we go by your loose definitions, then you are putting me in the same category as some lunatic fortune-teller. And sure, by self-reflection, I'm doing it to, lumping together believers in God with everyone else who has an unsupported belief.
What's the answer to this? If atheism and theism aren't broad opposing concepts then how do we broadly define what you define as an ideal atheist? I make a clear separation between atheism and theism and any other unsupported belief. It makes the arguments clear.
The reason I don't think the Scotsman fallacy applies is that an atheist who believes in other supernatural things or even gods that are not part of any live religion today is much closer to theism and those belief systems. They use the same kind of arguments, the same kind of justification for their beliefs. And even if we define atheism by the classic "lack of belief in God" then how can we have belief systems within atheism that are just as unsupported as in that classical definition?
An ideal atheist is the norm definition of an atheist.
Imagine that all current religions go out of fashion, they become dead religions, and a thousand years from now we have a new religion with a new "God". If Atheism is only defined in relation to current Gods, then atheism can't exist as a concept in opposition to that new religion.
And what about Buddhism? There are no Gods there, but it's still in opposition with atheism. An atheist Buddhist doesn't exist. So how do you define an atheist in relation to Buddhism?
I know what I said, and just as a racist saying "I'm not a racist", a person saying "I'm an atheist" and then lays tarot cards and start talking in tongues because they think there's an entity flowing through the quantum realm, is not an atheist. You misuse the Scotsman fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
I have clearly defined the line where you go from atheism to something else. So I'm not shifting any goalposts (like described in the link), I'm stating that any unsupported belief in entities, gods, supernatural, superstitious, or whatever unsupported belief you can think of, adheres more to theism than atheism. And that dismissing any unsupported belief that can't be justified with reason, rationality, and logic adheres to atheism.
You don't own the definition of atheism. If someone says they are an atheist and they don't believe in god, they are an atheist. Period. They may be an untheorized atheist, but so what? Atheism may have an ideal form (humanism and skepticism) but that's not what we were talking about.
What does this have to do with "owning" a definition? I criticize a muddy definition that incorporates new agers and other wackos into the same category as atheists. As I said: if someone says "I'm no racist" when they clearly are, they are still a racist. People can say that they are whatever they want, but having a quantum-squid-entity worshipper who lays tarot cards call themselves an atheist becomes absurd.
To say that someone can call themselves whatever they want is not an argument in this discussion, it has nothing to do with the points I'm making. If we are to have a discussion about atheism, it has to be clearly defined. I don't think aunt Clarice with her "cat god of venus" applies to atheism and using her will to claim herself to be an atheist has no relevance.
About 50% of atheists I have met at freethinkers forums/events over 40 years and the like have no or little interest in logical foundations. They may be inchoate but they are still atheists. I was an atheist for 20 years before I ever examined reason and logic.
It's not about an active or conscious way of using reason and logic as a calculus during the waking hours. The reason, rationality, and logic I talk about are how you approach everyday stuff with skepticism, with a clear opposition towards believing anything at face value. If an atheist didn't live by this, they would start to believe things that are unsupported, including the supernatural. It's not about "interest in logic", it's about the inner workings of an atheist's thought process. It's that if someone claims something, the atheist doesn't just nod and accept it as true, the foundational thought process questions everything until there's evidence or logic behind a claim.
Having a debate about why so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow.
Justify what? That I deny the truth value of any claim that doesn't have a rational, logical foundation for it? I justify myself as an atheist by not accepting anything as true or likely to be true just because someone say it is.
Sure, you have a point that I might create a concept of the ideal atheist, but there's no clear definition of what a person who lack unsupported belief is. And that kind of person is by definition an atheist anyway. So even if there's something added to include the lack of any kind of unsupported belief, not just in "God", that person is still at the foundation, an atheist. I just don't agree that aunt Clarice and her cat God can call herself an atheist, it's very much far from what defines an atheist.
American Atheists definition of atheism:
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system
So a Buddhist atheist can therefore exist? Or someone believing there's a quantum-entity-cat flowing through the Higgs boson field is also an atheist because that's not directly a God?
If I reject any kind of belief that isn't supported, reject belief systems all-together other than a supported belief that can be rationally justified, i.e a hypothesis, what am I?
If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I?
If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I?
If atheism is only about a lack of belief in a God or Gods, then what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with?
I suggest you read about secular humanism, this is the worldview you seem to have in mind.
Your other ideas might make a good new thread for those wanting to explore atheism more fully. I just wanted to explore the definition, a job I believe has been covered.
If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I?
I suggest you read about secular humanism, this is the worldview you seem to have in mind.
Yes, I know that. I'm trying to find out how people define atheism when it seems possible to believe in something that is by all definitions a God, but the only thing that is different is that they claim it not to be a God, even though everything about it is.
But by the definition that an atheist can hold different belief systems, just that they share the lack of belief in God or Gods, then an atheist with a belief system around that example who just reject the idea that it is a God, can't be an atheist, but theist, right?
How then can we have atheists with different belief systems? Isn't everything collapsing into pure semantics with no clear meaning of any definitions?
Buddhism is often described as an atheistic religion.
[quote=Nyanoponika Therea, Buddhism and the God Idea; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html] Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in.[/quote]
Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion
I am not bashing on Buddhism. In any sense, for me as an atheist, it's the only major religion close to any rationality in the world today.
But it is still a religion, with practices that can come in conflict with pure reason and rationality. Like, reincarnation, how do we combine that with atheism?
I'm trying to get some clarifications on the definitions people have, because I think there's no point in trying to argue about theism and atheism when people have muddy definitions in the first place.
If you want to mock me then go ahead, that would just clarify your level in this discussion.
All these perspectives are rooted in faith, so any perceived difference is an illusion, or at least a substantial exaggeration. Faith is the human condition. There's no running from it.
Faith is the human condition for a simple reason. We want to know everything, we can't help it. And there's lots and lots of things we don't know, and many we probably can't know.
I'm not religious myself, only incurably philosophical. But, imho, generally speaking religion has a pretty realistic understanding of the human condition. The evidence for this is that religion has thrived in every time and place for a very long time. No perspective that was way out of touch with the realities of being human would have accomplished that.
Think of it this way. If religion was a creature, we would have to admit it's very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind.
It means a tie, like if the final score is 1 to 1.
My question was what this means in the context of the debate. I know what it means in the context of soccer because that has an established scoring system. The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not.
The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not
I guess in competitive debates like in high school, they actually judge them and declare winners. In other debates, like presidential ones, each side gets to argue they won. In this one, 3017 is arguing he got a draw, so I guess ask him how he scored it.
I guess in competitive debates like in high school, they actually judge them and declare winners. In other debates, like presidential ones, each side gets to argue they won. In this one, 3017 is arguing he got a draw, so I guess ask him how he scored it.
I concede. I'm not mentally or emotionally prepared for asking 3017 anything today, I suspect it will end in my tears (rocking a hangover Hanover).
To be quite honest, it's entirely pointless to try and score it by formal criteria because @3017amen did not stick to the agreed topic from their opening post and offered no on topic counterpoints even after 180 engaged the distorted topic.
Ideally if you want to have a formal debate, at least agree to the topic and a strict format beforehand and stick to it. If you are unable or unwilling to even try and do that don't waste our time by getting us to set up a formal debate.
#irrationally angry because I've not seen a long form 180proof post in years and wanted to see one again.
So, I read the beginning and the end of this thread and it seems to me that (as norm) the "discussion" went south. :smile:
But I have a question to both believers in God and atheists - an answer to this I did not see nor find and which is the most important for both atheists and believers: God. Who is he: definition?
In short: a definition of who we are supposed to discuss about here?
Someone?
I was thinking about this and found that it’s actually difficult to not imagine something greater than God, because for there to be something definable as God there must be some kind of delineation or boundary, so we’re always (infinitely) forced to imagine what’s beyond that boundary.
In short: a definition of who we are supposed to discuss about here?
Someone?
The proposition was that atheism is illogical, so it's any normal-use definition of a deity, not just a particular one. I personally define God as 180proof, which is how I'd have kicked his ass. I ain't listenin to anyone who says they don't exist.
Reply to Kenosha Kid I am just asking - because if no-one - not believers nor atheists who refute the same "undefined god" discuss a matter where no-one knows who or what we are actually talking about - what is the point?
I mean if a believer does not know who he/she believes in - and the atheist does not know either who or what they refute - what is going on?
My position is quite clear - if and when no-one knows or knows how to define who or what they are discussing they are all just fumbling in the dark... seems quite pointless to me!
So if there is a definition that atheists use - what is that definition?
I am just asking - because if no-one - not believers nor atheists who refute the same "undefined god" discuss a matter where no-one knows who or what we are actually talking about - what is the point?
I mean if a believer does not know who he/she believes in - and the atheist does not know either who or what they refute - what is going on?
But that's already a good reason to reject the proposition: if it is too badly defined. Also, you don't need a complete description. I can reject the proposition that a magical man in the sky made the world and the stars and the animals and us by conscious design just based on what I know about the sky, the world, the stars, animals and us. I don't need to know the nature or extent or origin of the magic, or what sort of skyhouse the man lives in, or what his favourite colour is.
My question was what this means in the context of the debate. I know what it means in the context of soccer because that has an established scoring system. The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not.
I guess since nothing has yet been proposed, that nonexistent proposition can’t be either supported or not, which leaves a score of 0 to 0, as initially.
Reply to Kenosha Kid
:smile:
aaa... so you reject a magic man in the sky? I guess that most of the serious believers do share your point of view...
But seriously - what or who is God?
Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject?
Or do they reject - as do most serious believers - a magic man on a cloud with a white long beard
:rofl:
Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject?
That he can be said to exist when he can't even be described. Things do exist. If God is one of those things, say an apple, then he does exist. But I don't believe that an apple created the universe.
Reply to Kenosha Kid okay - but ...
there are lots of things we do assume exist but cannot be defined nor describe completely - our consciences is one of these things - and we have several of those within theoretical physics - but you would not say they do not exist (take black holes - they are only recently "seen" or said to actually exist) - and within physics they keep on looking for them because they believed - so if an atheist does not look how are they going to find?
Reply to tim wood but for those who have had "personal God experiences" it seems they do have the notion that God is completely real - even if invisible to our eyes (we do not have excellent sight now do we :rofl: )--- but as an atheist has never had that sort of experience they refute that other have? That would be the same as if I who have never had a depression or angst would say: it does not exist even if humans say they experience that - it's all made up.
Reply to Iris0 Plenty of serious believers will hear a naturalistic account of the Big Bang creating the universe and the Earth forming from the sun’s planetary nebula and life emerging from chemical reactions then evolving into humans, who just die and decay when we die but who should still do good as in not hurt each other even though there’s no eternal reward or punishment in any afterlife... and ask “so where is God in all that? you don’t believe in God?”
They clearly have some vague notion of some being from which everything came and for the sake of which everything is purposed, some fuzzy answer at the end of the chains of “how?” and “why?” that prompt all of philosophy, which naturalistic accounts don’t suffice for.
An atheist doesn’t believe in whatever that’ll supposed to be. Doesn’t think an explanatory of what is or what ought to be requires some vague ultimate answer in the form of a person: the usual kinds of answers will do.
Reply to Pfhorrest yeah but it was a very serious believer who gave the world and atheists that knowledge of a Big Bang --- this gentleman: Georges Lemaître a Roman Catholic priest - and by the way it was the Roman Catholic Church who "invented" the scientific method : https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/no-catholic-church-no-scientific-method/
so the serious believers normally gave the atheists what they build their atheism on?
Strange...
:wink:
Reply to Iris0
The Big Bang is speculative. It's an unsettled area of physics, so it's not really a foundation for anything and hasn't been digested by the scientific method.
Reply to frank oki - but... that is also the fact with the rest we --- assume - in regard to all that exists... so the BB is not the only theory we have in regard to what we believe
Reply to frank ejem... you know... when and if we have studied (years in my case) epistemology and the theories of science at the uni - we aught to know that we ---- assume. Because simply put and in brief the "process" of proving something is as follows:
you learn how to view something according to someones theory (a bit like the Bible you know - some one writes down some theory about some phenomenon)
then you deepen your knowledge in regard to that theory and others similar
then you propose - on that very basis - something
know you look for what you have predicted
when you find what you expected - you might say: it is proven
What?
The theory you know, of which you expect something? Yeah... right... so?
Perhaps, Hanover, as moderator, and in consideration of the debate to date, you might advise 3017 that if he does not participate by some time that you specify, you shall be forced to rule him as having withdrawn from the debate, and 180 the winner
180 asked to leave it open a bit longer to see if 3017 has more to say, so with that I'll leave it open a bit longer.
Atheists put their faith in theories and methods given to them from the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy: Mendel, Bacon etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
And have no definition of the god they refute = unknown god is refuted.
And thus this is logical?
Would have fooled me...:rofl:
Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject?
I'd reject the notion that God isn't well defined under the various traditions, even if there remain some unknowns. I also think there are substantial enough differences between Jewish thought and Christian thought on this that you can't group God under a single Judeo-Christian definition.
I do agree though that for meaningful debate on whether acceptance or rejection of God is rational, you must have a working metaphysical definition of "God," with the debate then centering on the epistemological question of whether the position taken is rational, or is at least consistent with the manner in which other things are said to be known.
The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," which makes his position far more difficult than the agnostic's.
there are lots of things we do assume exist but cannot be defined nor describe completely - our consciences is one of these things - and we have several of those within theoretical physics - but you would not say they do not exist (take black holes - they are only recently "seen" or said to actually exist) - and within physics they keep on looking for them because they believed - so if an atheist does not look how are they going to find?
You'll find lots of conversations about consciousness on here and people frequently have to define what they mean: a panpsychist, a solipsist, a dualist and a neuroscientist aren't likely to agree much on what it is, but they know why they mean. Or some of them do, anyway. There are ample philosophical and scientific papers in journals that rely on a common understanding of what consciousness is.
do agree though that for meaningful debate on whether acceptance or rejection of God is rational, you must have a working metaphysical definition of "God," with the debate then centering on the epistemological question of whether the position taken is rational,
The OP mentioned logic. Rationality is a different issue.
Belief in God can be embraced in either fashion: rationally or irrationally.
Rationality doesn't require more than that one believes experts endorse it.
For instance, everyone believes the earth is a sphere, but few could explain why. Their belief is rational due their faith in experts.
It is irrational to assert a proposition one doesn't understand, though. So an atheist should have a very clear idea of what they're rejecting. Otherwise, they are guilty of irrational belief.
The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," which makes his position far more difficult than the agnostic's.
I had my own conversation with 3017 a while back where I put forward my own complete review of all the different things one might mean by “God”, and reasons to reject either (1) that such a thing exists or (2) that such a thing is rightly called “God” in a sense that can differentiate between theists and atheists:
Reply to Kenosha Kid thank you, have listen carefully and often to Antonio Damasio and Christof Koch among others... yes... there are many concepts we use daily that we cannot give account of or define: reality for instance... so...yes
The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God,"
The atheist affirmation begins before that. The affirmation begins when the atheist affirms that they have a qualified method of addressing the question. And then, from that first affirmation, using that method they declare to be qualified, they then go on to some level of doubt or outright rejection of the theist claim.
I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate. Or is that debate a comfortable familiar routine which provides the entertainment users seek? Is the debate as it is sufficient, and thus there is no problem here which requires a solution?
As example, a card game that has predictable rules. Some people might find the old game boring and wish to invent a new game, whereas others would prefer to play the game they already know.
The OP mentioned logic. Rationality is a different issue.
I know, and I'd step back from that because we don't prove things by pure logic alone in many instances (ala Descartes) without reliance upon some empirical data or some amount of faith. If I can't prove God exists by logic alone (ala Anselm), that is no more a problem than that I can't prove trees exist by logic alone.
irrational to assert a proposition one doesn't understand, though. So an atheist should have a very clear idea of what they're rejecting. Otherwise, they are guilty of irrational belief.
If you have no justification for your belief, your knowledge is lacking (where K=JTB). If you have no definition for what you're rejecting, your belief is incoherent.
What about this:
One criteria for the contingent existence of matter is their substantial change. All that arises starts its existence or perishes - does thus not exist with necessity - but can or can not exist.
Some things are contingent without having come into existence because if we think that something non necessary exists we do not have to assume that this x also has arisen in time.
To cause something to exist is not the same as that same something has arisen at some point of time and that this same something is maintained in the existence.
That which is contingent exist must if we follow that line have come into existence ultimately caused by that which is not contingent.
If we accept that the universe could or could not exist and thus does not exist with necessity - then we must assume the existence of the Absolute.
The absolute exists by necessity and is the cause of its own existence and causes all other contingent to come into existence.
Reply to Hanover Are you satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general? Are members in general? I don't mean the particular debate being discussed in this thread, but all such debates. Answering this question is the first step.
If a reader finds themselves satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general, then there is no problem which requires a solution. No need to go further. That debate is readily available on every philosophy forum already.
If a reader is not satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate, then there are various possibilities. Maybe they are already searching for an alternative, maybe they already have an alternative, maybe it hasn't occurred to them that an alternative could be possible. Maybe they wish to invest time in this, maybe they don't.
I asked what you proposed, not for an exploration of satisfaction levels.
The price tag for hearing what I would propose is to answer the question, which readers are free to do or not as they wish, with my blessings in any case.
No - my first question in this thread was due to the debate where everyone seems to assume someone - whom they are not able to define ... so my answer to your question and suggestion to discuss the core of the matter --- is yes. I am interested to really know... who is God - the logically refuted one by atheists ---
The price tag for hearing what I would propose is to answer the question, which readers are free to do or not as they wish, with my blessings in any case.
Reply to Foghorn "no-one is able to answer the "who is God" question - neither the atheists who then refute what they do not know - more or less.
:rofl:
Its not one particular god an atheist for which they lack belief, its all of them. Not Zeus, not Odin, not Ra, not Yaweh…none of them. Not mother nature, not Giaea, not the combined love of all mankind or universal mystery. All colourful flights of fancy the atheist does not believe in.
Asking an atheist to define the god they do not believe in is like asking someone who doesnt watch TV which shows they don’t watch on TV. None, they don’t watch TV.
Please explain what would be logical, constructive or useful about providing an alternative to the God debate to those who feel no need for one. It seems wiser to just let sleeping dogs lie.
But it is still a religion, with practices that can come in conflict with pure reason and rationality. Like, reincarnation, how do we combine that with atheism?
The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence.
I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate. Or is that debate a comfortable familiar routine which provides the entertainment users seek? Is the debate as it is sufficient, and thus there is no problem here which requires a solution?
We're now all in agreement that none of us are interested.
None of us are interested in fishing out whatever genius you're withholding, now or ever. It's kinder I tell you rather than passively ignore you, which is what comes next.
Reply to tim wood Yes you are right, the notion is real - but then the God believer says they also thus know the sources - the cause - of their notion. And during all times everywhere - regardless of country, culture and if they were atheists or not - they have experienced the same God. And the experience and this notion that is real they all identify with the very same God. And when they identify who this God is they normally have a experiance of inner cognitive and emotional growth.
This is recorded by the Church and they call these humans saints.
The God they identify - regardless of where they were born or if they were atheists, secular, jews, muslims or what ever they were is Jesus.
Most of these humans (and I have heard lots of these testimonies on youtube and such) did not go to christian gatherings or such - but had a direct unexpected experience and identify this entity the same way.
Why can there be no credibility for this?
Reply to Foghorn But I am interested. I have always - this is the correct way of handling philosophy according to all the great masters - both Greek and European: have an open mind, be open to all and learn from all.
So whatever you are suggesting that will bring some new thoughts to mind: go for it - and I will want to see where this takes us --- and I will maintain a critical mind. So, go and we will see where this then ends. I will follow and speak my mind in regard to what ever you propose.
Reply to Banno Foghorn can't read for shit. When Hanover says "none of us are interested in fishing out your genius", he quotes "none of us are interested" and changes what Hanover meant. He does this rather regularly which is why I've started ignoring him. You should do the same.
Reply to DingoJones so you mean to say that the atheists do not know how to distinguish between gods made in the image of humans that are many or fictive figures like Superman and Batman and if there would be a real God?
This is really a very strange reason you are giving me - and if this is the reason "atheists reject all gods regardless, even if we do not know how to distinguish between them" it seems childlike to me.
Just like a little child saying: no no no I don't --- and you ask: what more exactly do you not - and they say: whatever.
Seems irrational to me, thus illogically to refute all you do not even know how to distinguish between.
If you do not know something you refute it?!
Right?
Well, yes, this is what I have encountered when I started studies within philosophy - that most humans reject and refute some sort of mental image of metaphysics - like bogus - and what they refute is their own lack of knowledge of the subject matter they normally when I ask them: can you please define what you think metaphysics is? They actually have no answer to it and react like children and say: well I refute that ...
What?
Metaphysics..
Yeah, but tell me what you think that is...
No, just accept I refute it...
Reply to Benkei I do not like when people tell me to ignore someone they - with their own minds or what ever they have judged - have a preset conception of, that is normally called: to be bias. And if you state - like the member Foghorn did - what you actually understood from what another member wrote - this is the correct manner to proceed. You then - by doing this (stating in short what you think you understood the other was trying to communicate to you) shorten the endless misunderstandings that normally occur when we read others.
So this sort of proceeder to state what you think you understood - is a good way to go. I will not ignore anyone. That is some sort of child play and immature. Do not want to partake there. But thanks for that invitation. Would not apply it to anyone though in this time of cancel culture. Do not partake in ignoring those who might give me inputs I do not even seek out - because they are unknown to me.
Want to be open and be able to discuss all with a critic mind and form my own opinions.
Reply to Benkei so, then your comment - not for me, makes it alright to be biased and apply cancel culture manners?
Explain so that I can understand how you think... because I cannot understand that sort of behavior? Do you folks only want to get your thoughts verified by those who say what you want to hear or listen to?
Reply to Iris0 My reason was in my post. You're making a lot of stuff up that has nothing to do with that reason. But keep it up, you'll be the next person I'm going to ignore.
Reply to Banno okej so what I am understanding by your post here is: that the man Foghorn is secretive and will not say what he thinks you guys should have been able to understand - or you are trying to convey an idea that he makes himself secretive and wants to have that image for no reasons at all other than it is some sort of image?
Right?
Reply to Benkei I just started participating and thus I did probe a bit... that is quite normal and if you are going to ignore me on that ground I would think you are a very sensitive person...
Right?
Reply to Foghorn so - what do you have to say as to the criticism I am reading about you. Do you think there is something in this? Is it some sort of image or are you not able to give reasons for what you state or are you of the opinon that you were clear on the matter and other should have understood your point?
Or what else?
Reply to Iris0 Swedes aren't dumb and slow on average. Sometimes insufferable though. I used to have meetings with the Swedish riksgalden and they issued debt at the time not because they needed the money but to maintain "access to the market". The Swedish director loved rubbing that in and preferred to give an update right after Italy or Greece.
The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence.
You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy.
Had science had been recognised as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine truth, it seems to me that a sense of telos would follow from the relationship between the surviving organism, and causal reality in evolution; in that the organism must necessarily evolve toward a valid relationship with reality, in its design and behaviour in order to survive.
For homo sapiens, it's not merely physiological and behavioural - but also intellectual. Knowing what's scientifically true and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true - applying technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality, would have made a paradise of the world. Again, implying the purpose of following in the knowledge of the Creator, given to humanity to understand.
You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy.
I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow.
I am new - and friends (hold on now) I am Swedish (dumb and slow) so enlighten me and pardon my bad English...
You ask a lot of questions which is fine, especially if they are genuine - but how about giving us something to actually chew on? In relation to the subject of God, what do you believe and why?
I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow.
Should I first write a definitive history of the Church in diary form, explaining day by day - everything that occurred from the establishing of the Papal Court of the Inquisition in 1235, 6th September about 4 'o clock in the afternoon, through the trial of Galileo, 1635, unto the present day, to support a claim that religion has a problem with science? You're deflecting!
Answer the argument - that religion jealously guarded any sense of telos as its own sacred ground, and science wasn't allowed the least implication beyond its practical applications in industry, such that your criticism, that science has no telos is a fait accompli.
It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences.
It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences.
WF speaks to an impoverished view of evolution. It's true, that evolution is driven by random genetic mutation, and has no particular destination in mind, but nonetheless, even the most primitive organism had to be correct to reality, that is - capable of surviving to reproduce within the physical, chemical, and increasingly biological reality of its surroundings. Those that were unsuitable were rendered extinct, over and over - a filtering process that; while based on blind forces, occurs in relation to a reality with definite characteristics. In short, the fact science excludes teleological assumptions from its methodology, does not mean a scientific understanding of reality, does not have teleological implications.
It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences.
It is an irrational belief that a theory of a non-teleological universe is inherently irrational.
Reply to Benkei Riksgälden is the institution that keeps the external governmental debts ... so you then have some experience from the "most secular country in the world" - that is us.
Reply to Tom Storm I believe that humans are simplistic - and we cannot do other that that. Because we have been taught a certain way of interpreting our selves, this life and all that surround us - and we do have a necessity to find some comfort in the strong beliefs on - something. Being true...the god of sciences is now in vogue and technology the altar everyone bows down to.
Our own superficial being and what we can gain the short time here is our goal. Sadly.
What is a human? Well now, we have the narratives from Mr Darwin to guide us - don't we... or we are guided by the narratives of Mr Marx or Mr Locke on how to live together, or we are guided by some mans thought on something we hold true.
Don't we...
I believe we do not know everything - but that the notion of believing that we do know everything gives us this security we need to exist in a world that is unpredictable and difficult to navigate in.
And we do navigate.
The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence.
But none of that has to do with what I pointed out.
And if your argument isn't really in opposition to what I said, but rather stating a new argument about the nature of living as I described it and that one cannot live by rationality, reason, and logic as a foundation because you lose the "why" of existence, any sense of telos, then that is simply wrong.
It is entirely possible to find meaning in the things that purely are, the exact nature of everything, without applying any further concepts to it in order to sense a meaning. You can absolutely accept that our existence is basically meaningless, absolutely pointless, but still invent a why your existence is meaningful to you rooted in what already exists, in of itself.
The struggle to find a "why" of existence is futile if that search is trying to externalize the meaning of our existence. To invent a God, or being that can answer us why, and to imagine an answer that will be understandable to all at the end of time. It is basically just a psychological life crisis that takes shape in such a futile attempt to desperately find meaning. There's absolutely nothing in the universe observed so far to suggest or hint at any such cosmic meaning of existence.
The problem is that people are psychologically unable to accept the disappointing truth of existence, so they invent a comfort, a drug, a blanket to hide under so as to not have to deal with such a cosmic horror of pointlessness. But the biggest problem with this isn't that everything is pointless, it's that few attempts are made to be satisfied, ok with this fact, and find meaning in the truth and existential situation that purely is as it is. The world is what it is, existence is no more or less than what you can experience through life. So find meaning in the things that do exist, in the intoxication of fantasy, art, imagination, without deluding such ideas to be true, a world within that is limitless, without having any cosmic meaning in of itself.
I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning. For me, it's pointless to muddy the sense of reality more than it already is with our limited senses of perception. If the line between what is true, or likely, and our fantasy, imagination, and art is blurred, we get delusions of existence.
Living with rationality, reason and logic as the foundation, means living with an exact line drawn so as to not be deluded by concepts that are closer to madness (by the definition of the word) than reality.
Reply to Iris0 That tells us a little about why you think others believe things, but not really about your views on God. I guess your response leaves a couple of possible interpretations. 1) that you think human knowledge is fallible and therefore God is a possibility or 2) that you think human knowledge is fallible and God is just the name we give to what we don't understand.
Reply to Christoffer what an interesting post you just wrote!
But - if everything is (because we can imagine it to so) without goal and without any sort of meaning, and all is just due to a stochastic variable - why did we not stay apes? They do actually walk on two legs but do still not have (nor do ravens - the smartest bird (animal) alive) the capacity of abstract thought and written language what will enable them to give their knowledge to their offsprings - and they cope and live in reality - MUCH BETTER than we humans do.
So why this joke (humans are a joke in this world being meaningless and giving in to what ever they see and want anyways) that is destroying the planet with our lust for all we see and can possess?
Reply to Tom Storm maybe rather the latter... because we simply DO NOT KNOW... now do we. When reading philosophy God is a huge issue... the million dollar question - and is and will be.
But (as I already suggested in another post in this thread) humans seem to experience God - have done and still do.
And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT?
These testimonies do beg a question: if they are true then what?
I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning.
See you in the gutter, we'll see if then you can still be so smugly satisfied with pointlessness.
And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT?
Muslims and Jesus? You sure? Islam describes Jesus as a profit who was not the son of God nor did he get crucified. Don't forget the Hindus who experience Brahma and Vishnu too.
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
— baker
Not logically. One could say something like, 'There is no perfect, omnipotent God who would not allow a Holocaust."
Enter the difference between God and demigods.
By definition, anything that happens has, obviously, been allowed for by God (for whatever reasons perhaps only known to him). This is why God is mostly an entirely useless concept with next to no explanatory power.
A demigod, ie. a very powerful entity, on the other hand, is a much more useful concept. For demigods take sides, give, take, condemn, punish; demigods do what humans normally do, but with much more power and resources.
I guess that when most people claim to believe in God, they're actually professing belief in a demigod.
When people bemoan the lack of justice or wellbeing in the world and how such is proof that God doesn't exist, or doesn't care, or is powerless, or is a psychopath, they are actually talking about a demigod.
You mention Darwin and how he lost his faith in God. This is a good example of someone losing faith in a demigod (whom he previously mistook for God).
Reply to Tom Storm as I said - from the Greeks and in all philosophy God is a mayor question and has been and will be - because we simply do not know! No one does. Listen to humans involved in this like the jews - they all say (their sages: no one knows God) and also it is written in the Bible that Jesus said No one knows God... so it is. No one knows God.
So it is like a sort of horizon we are trying to catch but will not be able - and this keeps us open.
I took the case with the Black Holes - they kept on looking even if no one had seen one - and it made them discover lots of things they otherwise would not have looked for.
That is good... but if our lives anyway are useless and meaningless - why knowledge? It does then all not serve any purpose either - other than technology? Right...
What is then the meaning of all if we do not stay open?
The logic of (this is the theme of this thread as I understand it) atheism is to close that horizon and say it just does not exist and as Dawkins said: now we do not have to worry... about what?
For me it seems illogical to close doors you have not even opened... or you tried to open but your rationality did not cope with them - and thus you let your LIMITS rule you?
Why?
Does not make sense to me.
why would humans end up in the gutter just because their lives are meaningless and they fill them with what they know and want?
No, I'm saying I want to see if the other poster can still be so calm and confident even when he is in the gutter.
People sometimes brag that they can handle the meaniglessness of life and that they don't need crutches like religion. Sure, as long as their health and wealth are still relatively intact, that long it's fun to be a nihilist. But what happens to those people when, for one reason or another, they lose that health and wealth?
Reply to Tom Storm I forgot the muslim + Jesus --- look here are loads of these: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muslim+convert+to+christian
I forgot the muslim + Jesus --- look here are loads of these: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muslim+convert+to+christian
I don't need to see this I already assumed it was converts. Just as there are Christians who convert to Buddhism following an 'experience'. And Christians who convert Islam.
So I do understand that atheism seems to be logical - when and if you only (as did the logical positives think and they failed to prove their point ...) believe in what you are able to take in with your senses.
But the world of the invisible is larger for us than the world of visible - because all our feelings and thoughts and such are - invisible... and we make them real. We talk about them we show them and we actualize them...
Reply to Tom Storm - yes but the difference is that many of these muslims (listen to them) had dreams about Jesus... before they converted or started looking...and as far as I know christians or secular people or who ever who reads about something that they find fascinating and go for it cannot be compared with the muslims - because they are under death penalty for converting. According to Islam they should all be killed.
Reply to Iris0 The death penalty is irrelevant, converting to a religions happens regardless.
By the way the numbers of Muslims who convert to atheism is significant also. They also are threatened by death. What do we conclude here?
Visions and dreams? Big deal. I have heard many of these stories from Christians who have converted to other religions too. Some of them I have met and interviewed.
Reply to Tom Storm so if humans (I have posed this question before in this thread) convert to religion when secuarlism has all the answers - what are they after? When they have everything and loose all just because they start believing?
Tell me if you know the answer...
You can absolutely accept that our existence is basically meaningless, absolutely pointless, but still invent a why your existence is meaningful to you rooted in what already exists, in of itself.
‘inventing a why’ is a precise definition of subjectivism.
All I said was, what you mean by ‘rationalism’ is really ‘positivism’, and nothing you’ve said there really defrays that.
That is a question that assumes there's one answer when you must realise that people do things for many reasons. Conversion stories seem to have a hold on you - why would that be?
Firstly, many people who are secular have no real scientific knowledge or interest and are not well educated and in fact do not have the answers. They often don't even have the right questions. They hold their secular views because of socialization rather than hard won knowledge. Such people can be easily swayed.
People change their beliefs in every direction all the time. From religion to atheism. Form homophobia to tolerance. From left wing to right wing. From making money to giving back. So what?
Reply to Wayfarer well now - does Goole give my your mindset on that concept? Or why do you mean I do not know the meaning I give that very concept should not be different as yours or the definition of google? You see my point?
Reply to Tom Storm but knowing - really knowing science - does not sway people? Why would that be - do you have a theory? I myself have spent - at the uni of Lund - from 2002 until 2008 in studies of metaphysics, logic and epistemology and semantics and ethics - so... you have the millon dollar answer? Give it to me... because the studies of the thoughts that underpin science, the scientific method and the rest of the shabang only begged more questions as to what we perceive - given the preconceived views on reality - as reality ---- in my humble case.
I do not state I know all and thus I can rule out something --- as the rest of humans regardless they are godbesivers of some sort or not.
Give me what science at the core has that I have not studied and found circular - and I will give you right.
I will sum up what I have go out of the answers up until now:
if the life of mankind is just a joke of meaningless endlessness of doing what enters the eyes and our mouth (nature)- why are we not still apes - they are much better adapted to just - being (the core of most religion = learn just to be in the fleeing now) and why do we have this endless search for meaning when it is meaningless? And what goal is there if there is no goal given that humans seem to need goals.
The scientific method preconceives of what we know, and what we know is preconceived in what we have learned in regard to ourselves and the universe - and how to understand it. Who comes out of that circle?
[quote="Iris0;553936"]Give me what science at the core has that I have not studied and found circular - and I will give you right.
You seem to be swerving all over the place with your ideas. Are you ok?
If you are looking for certainty you'll readily find it if you can accept fundamentalism. I suspect this is why many religions are attractive - they can also function as the last bastions of certainty and comfort in an uncertain world. Sounds like you gave scientism a try and found it wanting.
Reply to Tom Storm well now... am a philosopher ... are you not? :rofl:
And as such you must always follow all thread out there and see where they lead you. And thus you must give voice to what you found.
For me the horizon of God is intriguing so I have studied the Quran, books from Dala Lama, the Bible, listen to sages in judaism and I simply do not rule them out as ways to find the core of the Ultimate Good - and science is our way of handling and understanding what surrounds us.
I came into this earth hungry to understand - and that gives me more questions even if I also have a stand where I part.
But know?
hmmmmm --- this Journey is one that gives more questions than answers and I always doubt persons that think they have them all - including my old good self...
Reply to Iris0 OK. Sounds like you're one of millions of people who are dissatisfied and are searching. That's fine. This can either lead you to philosophy or to move away from it.
Reply to Kenosha Kid so I understand (correct me if I am wrong here) that Darwin lost his own image of who his own god was?
Or are you saying that Darwin actually knew God directly and better than those that do believe in God (learned jews and Jesus) who said: no one knows God?
No, I'm saying I want to see if the other poster can still be so calm and confident even when he is in the gutter.
People sometimes brag that they can handle the meaniglessness of life and that they don't need crutches like religion. Sure, as long as their health and wealth are still relatively intact, that long it's fun to be a nihilist. But what happens to those people when, for one reason or another, they lose that health and wealth?
This is irrelevant to the point I made, is it not? You are saying that because someone lives in the worst conditions, they will find it hard to feel meaning in anything. This is true and not something I argued against. What I said was that it is possible to accept life, nature, the universe, as it is, no more or less, and any meaning in life or to existence, can be built upon that, rather than delusions that come out of a life crisis.
So, you say that poverty and living in the gutter will make people turn to things like religion easily. This I agree with, but I'm not talking about the psychology of religious people or how people turn to it, but that it is possible to accept the pointless existence of life and the universe and still feel meaning without adding religious delusions. And people who fight against these kinds of very human tendencies (to invent unsupported explanations for things they can't explain), I find have much more strength than others to cope with life's challenges, as religious thoughts often spiral things into the nonsense that rarely pushes people out of misery. It takes a lot of willpower to not fall into delusions as a way to flee from the harsh reality of the universe and of course, that is harder the worse someone's life situation is, that is not the point.
But - if everything is (because we can imagine it to so) without goal and without any sort of meaning, and all is just due to a stochastic variable - why did we not stay apes? They do actually walk on two legs but do still not have (nor do ravens - the smartest bird (animal) alive) the capacity of abstract thought and written language what will enable them to give their knowledge to their offsprings - and they cope and live in reality - MUCH BETTER than we humans do.
Because self-reflection and the way human psychology works make us prone to depression in entirely more complex ways than them. That things are without a goal isn't something we imagine, it's what is the most logical observation of our existence, it's a hypothesis that is the most likely because there's no evidence for there being any further meaning. Any kind of applied meaningfulness that isn't an invented meaning by us (like, the pleasure of eating ice cream during a warm day) and rather a meaning that we invent as being cosmic and outside of ourselves, is the imagination, the delusion.
We didn't stay apes because evolution developed a highly adaptable intelligence for us in order for us to survive better and hunt in packs. We developed our advanced intelligence just like a predator develops extremely sharp and clear vision in order to hunt. Our intelligence is just a fluke of evolution, nothing more. What comes after that, i.e that our intelligence starts to invent concepts of reality that can have profound effects on us, good or bad, is just the side effect of this evolutionary trait. Just like the advanced night sight of the owl doesn't work well during the day, so does our intelligence fail to work well when we are pressured into explaining something unexplainable at the time. Like when our ancestors fleed a predator and they tried to explain between them why the animal did the things they did. They could then predict what that animal would do the next time they were being hunted and easily evade it. But when a lightning strike hit and killed one in the tribe, they couldn't explain why, but their intelligence forced them to do so because that's the point of that evolutionary trait, they started forming explanations that were far away from the truth of how lightning and thunder works, because it was too complex of an event to be explained at that time and with the resources they had.
So does intelligence work today as well. People tend to be extremely biased and explain with a lot of fallacies. We have over the course of thousands of years developed methods to bypass our thought process shortcomings, this is essentially what philosophy has been doing, bypassing our tendency for jumping to conclusions. And we've felt it in the world, we can see it all around. The very existence of the technology we have is a result of us being able to figure things out instead of jumping to conclusions. Using tools of thought to help explain something past our biases and fallacies. The very fact that we write on computers right now is because of this, not because we are intelligent and could figure it out. Without any tools of thought, developed through philosophy and science, we would never have come this far as a species.
So then, why should we live life through delusions that have their roots in primal thinking, biases, and fallacies? And not find meaning through ways of bypassing delusions and our intelligence shortcomings? This is what I'm talking about, that delusions are for people who give up on finding meaning in things as they are and instead need to apply fantasy to the universe in order to feel happy. Religion and belief is a drug to block the truth of reality. It takes effort and willpower to see things purely as they are, and even more to find meaning in the pointlessness of everything. But the opposite is just opium for the mind and soul, it can comfort, but is essentially a lie.
Reply to tim wood ah, finally... well now.
No evidence found?
Am not so sure about this because what I found after having read and tried to understand the issue is that the development in the ex christian countries are all towards personal freedom and democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and thoughts and opinion (in public) and the Christian thoughts were from the beginning: Freedom. That is smack in the center of this particular religion.
You can check that out and you will find it.
This in turn - when humans from all cultures and countries (in the beginning most women and slaves) saw their opportunity they took it and this movement grew as a grassroots movement until it took over governments and rulers. And so the laws changed. And the minds of people changed.
You will find the evidence of this when you make an honest comparison with the worlds where Islam has been and is still operative - government, personal freedom etc. Or countries where hinduism or buddismen have been operative.
The effects of the beliefs human have had have in fact formed the societies they have been active in.
Why?
Well what you think is how you will act and what you do is what later will become the result of what you where taught to believe and hold true.
Right?
Because self-reflection and the way human psychology works make us prone to depression in entirely more complex ways than them. That things are without a goal isn't something we imagine, it's what is the most logical observation of our existence, it's a hypothesis that is the most likely because there's no evidence for there being any further meaning. Any kind of applied meaningfulness that isn't an invented meaning by us (like, the pleasure of eating ice cream during a warm day) and rather a meaning that we invent as being cosmic and outside of ourselves, is the imagination, the delusion
Does still not make us understand why we have this sort of self-reflection --- what is if for? Giving us depressions? Seems very un-useful to me.
Why have we developed this faculty and this feature?
Reply to counterpunch so in short - then atheism is all about repeating what some guru said and no ability to think or find reasons on who or what one in reality is refuting?
Does still not make us understand why we have this sort of self-reflection --- what is if for? Giving us depressions? Seems very un-useful to me.
Why have we developed this faculty and this feature?
In order to reflect upon decisions. Nothing of this is really a mystery, just study some psychology and evolution and you will have the answers there. If we don't have self-reflection, we wouldn't be able to examine the choices we've made and adjust for the future. But depressions is even more basic, even animals show characteristics of depression.
And not all aspects of either evolutionary animal features or characteristics of our intelligence are useful. You can't take an example of something that doesn't make sense for us to have and conclude that in any pro or against evolution or religious beliefs. Evolution is slow, most of humanity right now still possesses characteristics of psychology that are basically still the things we had on the savanna. A lot of stress and mental disorders today have their roots in our modern lives not being very well suited for hunter/gatherer psychology.
I suggest you study psychology, evolution, history, etc. if you want longer and more thorough answers to these questions.
Reply to tim wood
I do not understand your line of argument - as there is no line... of argument. If belief does not form how people act - so what do they act on? And if actions do not form and build physical reality - what does?
If you think that it is okey with murder - and you act on it then there will be a dead person in the physical reality and the police in the same physical reality will link you to this murder and will punish you. Don't you think?
Reply to Christoffer yes yes we know all this.
BUT I actually asked you why.
Why do we have these un useful and completely meaningless brains that work for nothing the way they do - no other animals have them.
Do not say I should read phycology and stuff - because they ONLY study what is already present and there - not why it came to be...
so I understand (correct me if I am wrong here) that Darwin lost his own image of who his own god was?
Or are you saying that Darwin actually knew God directly and better than those that do believe in God (learned jews and Jesus) who said: no one knows God?
I didn't quite follow your question. Darwin lost his faith in the God he believed in, that he was brought up the believe in.
Why do we have these un useful and completely meaningless brains that work for nothing the way they do - no other animals have them.
Do not say I should read phycology and stuff - because they ONLY study what is already present and there - not why it came to be...
I already explained it in detail, if you want more detail you have to study psychology, I won't write out thousands of pages of psychology research when I've already summed it up.
And psychology doesn't just study what is going on now, it's actually the exact thing you are after. The only way to understand how we function today is to study how our intelligence evolved.
You can't just demand answers and when you get them you just repeat the questions again just because you don't understand the answers. I've summed it up and if you want to dive deeper into the science of evolution and psychology you really have to sit down and read about it.
If you don't do the work and just question the answers you get like that, then it's hopeless to try and explain further. It's all there in psychology research, buy some books!
Reply to Christoffer okay - let us put this then within the realm of no meaning and no goal to anything that exists - it just evolves freely and without meaning of aim. That is in fact the stand of atheism - am I right?
Reply to tim wood I have no problem accepting the difference between the fictive and the real. Never had - but I have met secular people who believe they cannot say if they are in a Matrix or not.
:smile:
And the humans who say that they have a real experience of God - who are they talking about? Fiction or reality?
Reply to tim wood as is then all sort of feelings and inner experience that you think you have - but are delusions? Or connections you believe exist between events or cause and objects in this world?
Comments (341)
More popcorn!?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11201/debate-the-logic-of-atheism
Why did Einstein hate red?
Also some kind of equivalence between theistic and atheistic reasoning.
Very verbose though. Difficult to read
This is why a moderator is necessary. To keep those two things from derailing the discussion like every other time. Without one we are into the same old shit as before.
One of those things will be moderated, but not the other...
I can’t tell which one your disdain is for lol
Probably a good thing.
Should be replaced with....
Atheism: The belief that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods.
Theism: The belief that holy books and personal experience are qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods.
Both sides share an agreement that human beings are capable, by some method or another, of generating meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. If that assumption can't be proven, then the entire debate collapses under it's own weight.
1. If theists can prove theism then, there are arguments to prove theism. [that's what debates are]
2. All arguments for theism (except one which I'll get to later) have been thoroughly refuted by atheists [true]
3. If 2 (above) is true then, there are no arguments to prove theism.
Ergo,
4. There are no arguments to prove theism [2, 3 MP]
Hence,
5. Theists can't prove theism [1, 4 MT]
What are the options for theists?
One immediately comes to mind:
[quote=William Cowper]God moves in a mysterious way[/quote]
That god moves in mysterious ways means one and only one thing:
6. God is uber-rational [God's rational but at a level that our own rationality can't process.]
7. If God's uber-rational then, there's no point arguing about God
Ergo,
8. There's no point arguing about God
Show's over folks!
The theistic argument I said I would talk about later: The Ontological Argument (St. Anselm)
180's reply is about all that one could do with such a poor opening - try again, 3017.
I have to agree. The first post should be a statement of one's own position! For all the learned philosophical arguments rallied to assault a dictionary definition of atheism, I still don't know why 3017 is a Christian Existentialist.
I actually disagree. 180's opening shouldn't have been diverted by a weak opening by 3017, but should have just made out his case as if he had gone first. Otherwise, we just reach an immediate impasse and the discussion just ends with a whimper.
Assuming 180 has a substantive claim that Atheism is a logically supportable position, I'm not left with any basis from his post that he is correct. If, though, his point is that 3017 didn't make his point and he's willing to leave it at that, then I'm left agnostic to this issue, with one side making a failed effort at his position and the other refusing to engage.
First, let us prove that logic is relevant to such enormous questions so far beyond human scale. Until such proof is provided, all sides of the debate lack credibility, and the debate collapses under it's own weight.
As example, imagine two religious people having a debate about competing interpretations of Bible verses which are describing God. Until the Bible is shown to be a credible authority on the subject of gods, such debates are fun, but essentially meaningless.
A collapse of the theism vs. atheism debate is not automatically a bad thing. It could be just another step in a credible investigation which is making progress. As example, should we discover that hammers are not a good tool for fixing broken windows, that would be progress. Having discarded the hammer we can now turn our attention elsewhere.
If both theism and atheism are discarded, we are left with nothing. It's typically assumed this is a failure, but that's not necessarily true. A state of conceptual nothing actually matches the nature of the vast majority of reality pretty well. This would seem to matter for those who wish for their philosophy to be based on observation of reality.
Pretty slow and a very poor response from 180 to respond. 3017s opening post was not ideal,but I get the gist. 180 said nothing.
I think that we should listen to both positions and judge the arguments fairly. The debate has barely started, and I wish to learn from it. Part of the problem which I see is that the debate position is framed in the proving of the negative, or of arguing against atheism, as the position of there being no God, or of it being illogical. This will depend upon a specific viewpoint of atheism, because there may be variations of atheism. So, this means that Amen has potentially put himself in the position of refuting any form of atheism. He may have set himself a task of lifelong philosophy.
However, as I have interacted with Amen and Proof, I wish to give both a full hearing, because they are probably approaching the hardest question in philosophy.
A vote could be based on which speaker is the most articulate, explains their position the most clearly etc. We could vote for a particular writer based on our opinion of their writing skill.
But in order to get us to read them in the first place, we'd first have to see a debate which doesn't just recycle what's already been said 10 billion times.
That's the dictionary definition of atheism, written by people who work at dictionary companies, not by anyone who understands atheism in the real world.
Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is instead a belief in an authority other than the authorities referenced by theism. Atheism is not a negation, it's a competing assertion. Thus...
1) Both positions bear the burden of proving the qualifications of their chosen authority for the task at hand.
2) Neither can do so.
3) Debate collapses.
Even staunch militant atheists like Richard Dawkins accept you cannot logically disprove the existence of God.
Atheism references no authority, you are making that up. Atheism IS a lack of belief, and thats all it is. Whatever else an atheist might believe about religion or authority is irrelevant, what makes them an atheist is simply a lack of belief in god or gods.
1) the atheist has no such burden, they are not asserting anything. They simply lack a belief, lacking a belief is not an assertion.
2) the theist certainly cannot, but again the atheist has no such requirement. The atheist isnt asserting anything.
3) it collapses only because you redefined atheism specifically so it would collapse.
Please introduce us to the atheist who comes to their position without reference to human reason.
I don't think it's really gotten off the ground yet.
It's not clear what it means to have a "logical position."
If I believe the sun is bright, is that a logical position to hold? Do I need to produce a logical proof first?
Or is it that my opponent needs to show that it isn't logical to defeat me?
After a long stretch of rain, the weather is now finally suitable for gardening, so I barely have any time left. I haven't even turned on the computer for 11 days!
I so want to have a say in that debate!!!!
No, she didn't work for a living (a crucial aspect of a person's life), her position is irrelevant to those who have to work for a living.
WOO HOO!!! Eleven days. Wow, I haven't managed that since, um, 1994. Seriously. Thank you for reminding us it's still possible to have a life. :-)
I do agree that part of the debate may depend on what is logical. I have read some of the ideas of Strawson, and I do believe that they are useful for thinking about logic. However, our ways of viewing life are so intricately bound up with reason and logic. Of course, it is possible to come up with dictionary definitions of terms, especially logic, theism and atheism, but these are meanings used in daily discourse, rather than in fuller philosophy analysis.
Therefore, I think that the debate will be interesting, but both positions of 'logic' are likely to be open to question. It is an interesting area for debate, but I am inclined to think that rather than being a matter of rigorous debate, it is so much more, it is not about concepts as such, but about how we contemplate the world and reality. It may be that there are no right or wrong answers ultimately. However, the battle between theism and atheism is such an interesting philosophy debate, and is central to how most people begin to think about so many other philosophy questions and issues.
Reason is not an authority, it is a tool one uses when one wants to make sense.
Regardless, how one comes to be an atheist isnt definitive of atheism. Atheists can be atheists through bad reasoning, its not a position on reasoning it is a position in belief in god.
People use the terms in different ways. Some refer to it as the lack of belief that there is a God or gods (weak atheism) and some refer to it as the belief that there is no God or gods (strong atheism).
Rather than get lost in arguing over the correct meaning of "atheism" it would be best for any self-proclaimed atheist to clarify whether they simply lack a belief in a god's existence or if they believe that no god exists (or whatever other alternatives there are).
Ok, a tool if you prefer, and the atheist belief is that this tool can generate meaningful statements on the subject of gods.
In the same way, the theist believes that holy books, or perhaps their personal experience, are tools which can generate meaningful statements on the subject of god.
Competing claims. None of which can be proven.
The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Sincere.
But unsophisticated.
If a person is using books and personal experiences to draw conclusions they are still using reason to do that. You made a false equivalence here, to draw an actual equivalence would be for the theist to use faith as their tool. As I started this side bar off with: faith is a garbage tool.
In any case, I’m not making a claim about atheism or theism generating meaningful statements.
Quoting Foghorn
Nobody has faith in reason. People have very repeatable patterns of reliability that prove its efficacy. It is the foundation of all of science and knowledge. It is as “proven” a thing as here is. Zero faith needed.
This is another false equivalency, where you have used “faith” in two different ways so that it appears faith is common to both theism and atheism. “Faith” is used in everyday speech to talk about reasonable confidence in something. People say they have faith in spouses, faith public transit system etc. “Faith” is also used as a basis for believing in something as when the theist is asked why they believe in god and they answer “faith”. It is given as a reason, which I’ve argued it is not.
This is an important distinction and let me make it clear that it is the latter usage that I am using and it is the latter usage that negates the point you make in the quoted portion.
So from my perspective my initial point stands, but please point out where ive failed to address a rebuttal you made if thats the case.
The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.
The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.
I predict no derailment. It would be a miracle (ha!) if the train ever leaves the station.
Quoting tim wood
I disagree. Weak atheism requires no consideration at all, and strong atheism is a rejection of the proposition 'God exists' for want of evidence. You cannot have evidence that God does not exist.
The starting point of any inquiry is that everything (and its negation) might be logically possible. Then someone or another shows some reason or another why something is not possible, and so its negation is necessary. The question at hand is about whether or not atheism is logically possible, not whether it is definitely true. 180’s position is, of course, “I don’t see any reason why not”, because if he did see any reason why not then he wouldn’t hold that position. So everything really rests on 3017 offering some supposed reason why not, the merits of which can then be debated.
180 probably also has some reasons why theism isn’t possible, but that’s not the subject of this debate.
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
I suppose by "prove" you mean the formal sense, rather than just convincing someone? That does seem like an impossible bar to meet.
I mean, you can't prove the material world exists, however I feel plenty of solid arguments can be made to convince someone it does. Maybe that's what should be aimed for.
Id be willing to place bets that it derails lol
We have a historical pattern of it, why would this be any different?
Nicely put.
This is the common atheist error, the assumption that because reason is proven good for many things (agreed) it is therefore automatically qualified for everything. And because they hold this typically unexamined assumption, they see no need to inspect or challenge those qualifications.
And so, ok, let us reason together. Let us apply the very same degree of challenge we reasonably aim at theist authorities to atheist authorities. This process is often called intellectual honesty.
I explicitly did not make that assumption. I said repeatable patterns of reliability. Thats true, reason has that and that reliability can be tested in real time, pretty easily. It is neither unexamined nor an assumption im afraid. This is not the same as saying it is “automatically” qualified for everything, you inserted the automatic part all on your own.
Also not true that it is a trait of atheism to not inspect or challenge the qualifications of reason, this is a human thing not an atheist thing.
Quoting Foghorn
Im not sure what you mean but I’m game. Im not sure how much we actually disagree here, but I did notice you are somewhat cherry picking my posts for responses.
Ive been patient because you seem a decent fellow but since you mentioned intellectual honesty I would be remiss if I didn’t bring it up now. Please address my arguments instead of just making more of your own.
Please show us the reason based repeated patterns of reliability in generating provable claims on the subject of gods. Your claim, your burden.
Not logically. One could say something like, 'There is no perfect, omnipotent God who would not allow a Holocaust."
Ya see you aren’t acting in good faith here. I made a number of points that you havn’t addressed, you have not been engaging with what Im saying. I pointed this out fairly plainly and your response was to ignore that as well.
Im done, but to show clearly which of us is not being intellectually honest here I will rebut your question:
Do you believe in Zeus? I hope not.
Well Zeus is a god and I’m happy to abandon reason for whatever method you used to determine that Zeus doesnt exist and apply it to all of them.
Good day sir.
Ah, I gotchya now. Slow on the uptake sometimes.
Please don't take it personally. I didn't respond to every point because I've already done so at least a billion times for 25 years. Everything you're saying, word for word straight out of the atheist dogma bible, endlessly repeated everywhere. Meaning no personal offense, really, just saying, nothing new here.
No its not (dogma), you are taking what Im saying and reframing it to these “typical” atheist responses and tilting at windmills and strawmen. Lol, I mean come on your mode of engagement is to ignore what I’m saying because you know it all already. Thats a neat way of not having to defend anything you say or points made against you.
Anyway, I din’t take it personally Im just not a fan of wasting my time. Since you already know everything on the matter I would imagine a waste of yours as well.
Glad we nipped that in the bud.
I do know it already. Again, please calm down, I mean you no personal offense. And if you find me offensive, just ignore me in turn.
Lol, I never take gambling advise from anyone so all good.
And they say philosophy is a dry, boring, non-juicy area of inquiry. How wrong they were!
[quote=180 Proof; https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543765]I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ???[/quote]
[quote=3017amen; https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543771]here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?
Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[/quote]
[quote=180 Proof;https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543775]No, but that will suffice for (A) weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend.[/quote]
So I think 3017 has taken it that you are willing to defend atheism as thus defined, and now he is asking you to do so.
You, however, also make the great point that he has yet to actually formulate an attack on that position, so there is as yet nothing to defend from.
3017, please see my earlier comment in this thread:
Quoting Pfhorrest
This got me thinking about Darwin this morning, a man who lost his Christian belief in the face of facts. I was not raised in any religion at all, and was about 7 years of age when I first realised that people actually believed this stuff (the fundamental difference between Jesus and Superman). So for this brand of atheism -- clean atheism, perhaps -- there are no facts that lead one to conclude that there is no God, rather, as I said before, an absence of facts to conclude that there is one.
For a religious person, or an atheist more deeply embedded in a religious culture, facts such as those presenting themselves to Darwin can and do lead to a conclusion of no God.
Strangely, I WAS raised in a religious family and it STILL took me by surprise some time during my growing-up when I realized that adults didn’t think of Jesus and Santa Claus the same way: stories you tell children as if they were true as a kind of game or moral lesson but not something grown-ups literally believe in.
My family gave me all kinds of religious fiction (as in, stories even the believers knew was fiction) that featured angels in modern times and prayer saving people via miracles, or events in ancient times featuring fantastic monsters defeated by righteous soldiers of God, that so far as I could tell was indistinguishable from urban or high fantasy respectively. So that probably (unintentionally on their part) helped me to categorize religious mythology in the same category as any avowedly fictional mythopoesis.
I'm not sure but the word "prove" seems to encompass both the rigor of deduction and the uncertainties of induction and abduction. Your objection seems unfounded and, may I add, too pedantic; nevertheless it's good to know that technically, "prove" is reserved for deduction. By the way what word would describe abductive and inductive inferences? Any ideas?
A common argument against atheists is that they need to prove everything beyond any kind of doubt while theists can believe whatever they want. But an atheist that doesn't have a logical foundation for a hypothesis isn't really an atheist anymore, he has belief.
An atheist doesn't have a lack of belief in God, there's nothing lacking, there's just no logical assumption that there is a God, so it's not even on the list. The only reason atheists speak and think about the concept of "God" is because theists have proposed such ideas in society.
In a blank slate of a world where there are none of the religions we have in the world today, but unexplained natural phenomena that previously were sources for many religious events, are explained logically, reasonably, and with science, i.e a world where we developed a scientific method before any religious explanations for events in nature around us: there wouldn't be any religions. The religious ideas today have their foundation in building upon previous generations beliefs all the way back to when someone wanted to understand why something like thunder happens, or why crops die. If there were no such sources and we already logically explained that thunder happens because of differences in temperature and moving air, while crops die because of infestations and stuff, there wouldn't be any supernatural phenomena that caused them and we wouldn't have such belief systems around it.
An atheist looks at the world as it is, disregard any previous "guesses" about anything, don't care for previous generations that can't logically explain anything and focus purely on what logic and reason can explain. It doesn't have to be proven beyond all doubt, it has to make sense.
Like ideas about quantum mechanics or possible string theories. We don't have much evidence of anything for that, but we have a lot of hypotheses that make sense, some are even so logical that we are already inventing technology using the phenomena we have discovered through those hypotheses, even without fully know how they work. But nothing of this is "belief", it's rooted in logic and reason.
So I think that the idea that atheism is "a lack of belief in God", is a bit misleading to the core of what atheism is. Because even if someone isn't believing in God, and starts to believe in ghosts, new age or other superstition/supernatural events, that aren't directly related to "God", they are still theists in the sense of belief. Atheists focus on logic and reason, they are closer to being immune to believing in anything that doesn't have a logical foundation underneath. And a belief system about God is at its core something that does not have a logical foundation and because much of the atheist movement has its modern roots in western society, where Christianity also has its roots, the idea that atheists lack a belief in God has become the norm explanation for atheism, which I don't think is accurate to what drives an atheist.
Yes, agreed. The debate is a choice of which authority to reference.
The problem God thread philosophers on all sides face is that in centuries of such debate nobody on any side has been able to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority for this particular task.
The next problem is that nobody cares about that. :-)
God debates are like dancing. There's a series of steps that everyone has memorized, and it's fun to get together on the dance floor and do the dance yet again.
There's no crime in it. Life is short and fun is good. It's just not philosophy, that's all.
This implies that atheism is only in opposition with the concept of "God" and the belief in one or a pantheon. But I wouldn't call someone who believes in astrology an atheist. It's the same kind of belief system, just not focused on the concept of God.
Quoting Foghorn
I agree that theism shouldn't be considered philosophy because philosophy should require reason and logic as the foundation. Atheism works in this sense since it's founded on thinking with reason and logic.
In philosophy, it's as if we have five people who are all claiming to be correct about five different topics. Four of them get questioned by a moderator, and they are forced to logically explain why they think they are correct. Every little detail of these four people's arguments is scrutinized to the core, chopping away until the most logical conclusions are made by each of these four people. The fifth person then claims something without any kind of rational logic behind it and the moderator of this event just says "ok". The other four ask why the fifth person didn't get the same kind of rational scrutiny and treatment and the moderator replies, he's a theist.
This is why I don't think irrational belief, religion, and theism have any place in philosophy. It's the very antithesis of what philosophy aims to do. Theism is like a bubble of philosophy, a playground for the special children where the rules are totally different and everyone else just has to accept it, occasionally invite them out of that bubble and accept that irrationality and lack of logic.
The problem is that "such ideas" are arguably, the foundation of society; and here's where the atheist must falter - short of an alternate higher power in which to invest ultimate authority. Science has not been allowed to step into that role; even while science describes a literal truth, and way of thinking that decentralises the divine mystery.
Had science been recognised as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine enlightenment over the past 400 years or so - we'd have both science and God as sources of authority; and knowing what's true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true, we'd be healthy, upright and prosperous.
But that's not what happened; and what we have, in some respects, is the worst of both worlds. The rationalising influence of science is blunted; merely serving to disenchant, and so undermining traditional bases of authority, without quite ushering in the scientific miracle of a rational development of resources - that ideally, would have occurred as (circumstantial) proof of divine benevolence.
Consequently, IMO - anyone less than a Marxist radical must surely err on the side of agnosticism; not least because, science doesn't actually rule out the existence of God. Strictly speaking, opinion aside - agnosticism is a rightful epistemic status, and always has been. No-one really knows! Hence the mystery!
Quoting Christoffer
At the very least, the concept of God is an important social and political phenomena, the atheist would declare false without proof for what reason? I wonder!
Any method which declines to challenge it's own fundamental assumptions is not philosophy, but instead merely ideology. It's not reason and logic to refuse to examine and challenge the qualifications of reason and logic.
Except that it's not. In atheism the core (blind faith in reason) is very rarely touched. Most atheists don't even know it's there. There's typically far more doubt honestly expressed in theism than in atheism.
Not trying to be pedantic. The claim that the ontological proof was the only surviving one was what made me think we were talking about deduction alone.
There are other decent(ish) arguments that don't rely on deduction. For example, the Anthropic Principal. Forces in the universe are seemingly arbitrary in their values (e.g. gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, the speed of light). However, tweak these a bit and intelligent life bearing any resemblance to us becomes impossible. Planets become impossible. We have a razor thin band of possibilities for these arbitrary values to take or the universe can't support multicellular life.
Since we have no observations of other universes to consider as data, this is merely an (IMO a decent) appeal by analogy. Things don't end up perfectly ordered elsewhere in nature, why should they at the fundemental level. It's like stumbling across a perfectly square copse of trees in the woods; sure it could be chance, but chance doesn't tend to create these sorts of things. Why should there be unchanging laws in the first place? These are all appeals to the idea of the universe being designed for life. If these constants don't all get set precisely, you don't get life, but they are all set precisely. However, this isn't deductive, and it's not based on an analysis of compatible data of multiple universes' laws, which we'll never have, but rather an inductive argument based on the chaos of most natural phenomenon, and the unchanging fixed nature of the fundemental laws. Still, it's a problem that theists and simulation theory advocates have a better answer to at the moment.
First, atheists typically assume that theism is nothing but a pile of ideological assertions, thus revealing the ignorance which prevents them from being effective critics. This misunderstanding is particularly RAMPANT on philosophy forums.
Next, generally speaking, taken as a whole, religion is more realistic than atheism about the human condition, and more compassionate in serving that reality. This not because theists are smarter, but only because they've been doing their thing far longer. Here's the evidence...
To this day, religion continues to thrive in every time and place. It's been doing so for thousands of years. That is, religion is a "creature" very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Natural selection is demonstrating the power of religion to anyone willing to listen to the evidence.
In my view you make a common mistake by trying to include a whole world view under the rubric of atheism. It only pertains to theism, nothing more. Over 30 years I've certainly met more than my share of atheists who believe in fortune telling and astrology. The idea that logic or reason is involved is a myth. This pertains to those atheists who are theorised.
Logical positivism is inconsistent.
And most atheists do not live their lives purely by logic and reason. That's impossible.
And the believers in rationality just assume rationality can explain everything. Whence and why this faith?
I have not problem living as an atheist in a society that doesn't rely as much upon any religion or God as nations like the US does. Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. It's the Nietzchian fear of nihilism. But in a society that isn't as heavily relying on God or religion, society works anyway. In Sweden, there's not a lot of Christianity as any kind of foundation. Traditions like Christmas and Easter aren't celebrated with any God "present", but instead celebrated for celebration's sake, no underlying values are forced upon the people, they celebrate as a chance to have a good time with their friends and family. Religion has disappeared from the celebration and it has become something else, only having words linger from the religious roots.
So there's no reason for any religious foundation at all. Moral philosophy can easily replace commandments, and probably do a better job at it since it's always under scrutiny without being called heresy.
The only people who think that a society can't exist without a religious foundation, are the ones within such a religious framework. It's a usual theist argument that society needs religion and faith, but every time we have true atheism as the foundation in society, it's actually a lot more peaceful and rational. The common counterargument from theists then points out Leninist and Stalinist communism as an example of atheistic societies, but this is just false. Not only is it a simplification of Marxism, since Lenin and Stalin corrupted those ideas, but the key factor is that both Stalin and Lenin replaced God as a religious figure.
Quoting counterpunch
As I've said, atheism is about logical reasoning as a foundation, not proving God's lack of existence. If anything, in philosophy, the burden of proof is on the theist side and has been forever. Agnosticism acknowledges the possible existence of God, without any logical reasoning behind it, that's not atheism. Which is a key point as to why I say that atheism has nothing to do with a lack of belief, it has to do with logic, reason, and being rational as a foundation. Anything supernatural, religious or similar isn't even on the table for atheists because there's no rational reasoning behind it. Being agnostic requires you to entertain a part of faith in God as a possibility, which doesn't exist for an atheist.
Quoting Foghorn
That's what epistemology is. The true philosophical antithesis of theism.
Quoting Foghorn
No, because everything is eventually explained by "God" or religion in some way. "Blind faith in reason" also doesn't exist, it's the very foundation of epistemology to question how we reason. To say that atheists have blind faith in reason is straw-manning the concept of atheism.
Quoting Foghorn
It's only realistic for primal people that try to figure out the world without any way of rationally explain what is happening around them. That theists have been doing it for far longer is also a fallacy and not in any support of any conclusion you make. We can actually say that rational reasoning is older since most current religions are younger than western philosophy. But the people of power in religion throughout history snuffed out anyone challenging that power. This is why the world has moved towards wide atheistic adoption in such a short span of time because the enlightenment era was more powerful than the church and other religious institutions. By 2035 it's expected by metrics that over half the world's population will be atheists. So if religion and theism is more "correct" for the human condition, why have the atheistic worldview exploded in numbers, and will continue exponentially? When lifting the fact that this is happening globally in many different religions and worldviews, it kind of speaks to the opposite of what you are saying about the "human condition".
Maybe it's just that religion is easier to use to control people's knowledge and also is easier to adopt when there's no explanation for an unexplained event. So in a world where these things were more common, religion was more common. In the age of reason we live in today, the old truths start to crumble easily.
Quoting Foghorn
This is not evidence at all. As per what wrote above. People are prone to pattern-seeking in their environment, we are easily fooled by what we don't know. That doesn't mean we are "made for religion", it just means we are stupid until we find mental tools to bypass those biases and fallacies when thinking of the world. And we did, it took some thousands of years to fine-tune those tools and we've just begun to use them. The enlightenment era was like inventing the wheel, we invented rational tools that wiped away the necessity for religious views as factual.
Quoting Tom Storm
If someone believes in something in the same way as believing in God, then however you define atheism it fails to apply to them. Lack of belief? Nope, they believe in astrology and fortune-telling. Reason and logic as a foundation? No, they don't question the legitimacy of astrology and fortune-telling.
Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. It's like racists who say "I'm not a racist" when they clearly are. I don't see a reason to muddy the waters of what defines an atheist, because that's a smörgårdsbord for theists to muddy the waters of definitions.
If we are to have a clear definition of atheism it needs to be what I propose. Anyone who believes in something without any logic or rational reasoning for it, is simply not an atheist. Otherwise, what would an atheist be called in contrast with the concept of the spaghetti monster? I can't be an atheist and believe in that. Atheism is a consolidation of all reason and logic against any kind of belief in something that doesn't have that as a foundation, regardless of God or fortune-telling nonsense.
Quoting Trinidad
Epistemology is an entire field for that. Try it.
Quoting Trinidad
No, it's not. Having a hypothesis is not having belief. If I say I "believe" in something, I do it because I have sufficient data supporting that there's significant reason to do so.
It's only impossible for those who have been taught otherwise. I have no problem living my life based on logic and reason. It doesn't change that I can feel emotions and have experiences that are profound, I just don't apply fantasy concepts to those things. If people grow up with religious concepts I understand that this is a problematic way of thinking, but our upbringing wires our brains and unwiring them is not easy at all. Saying that atheists can't live by logic and reason is like saying people can't live by religious ideas, they can, and so can atheists live by not applying fantasy to the unkown.
Quoting Trinidad
No, they don't, they accept that there are things yet to be explained, but they don't produce fantasies to explain things for them before they have any evidence of truth or logic for a deduction. They accept things to be unknown. We don't know what dark matter is, we've seen a presence of something. A theist might conjure up fantasies that dark matter is God for some reason, but an atheist just accepts that we don't know yet what dark matter is. Both can look at the dark matter as mysterious, but one of them doesn't jump to conclusions.
How you describe rationality and reason is the common strawmanning that theists do in order to undermine the legality of atheistic concepts. But there are no problems living with rational thought, reason, and logic. None.
If not,your whole post is moot.
And to be honest,you sound just as dogmatic and ill informed as a fundamentalist.
You are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Atheism is without theism. It pertains to one claim only (theism) and is not a system. It says nothing about any other irrational beliefs the person might hold. You're conflating a belief with an epistemology. The ideal atheist may well be a secular humanist who privileges reason and holds to no superstition but that is a wholly separate matter.
Most of the critiques of religion arise right out of a moralism which was given to western culture by the Jews. The Christians then became the leading salesmen of such moralism (not to be confused with being morally superior). So many atheists think they can just pull the plug and walk away from these thousands of years of history. It doesn't work that way.
An example...
I was raised Catholic. I made the choice to leave the church over 50 years ago. I had the option, the choice, to stop attending services, and be a critic of the Vatican etc. That much we can do.
But I can't stop thinking like a Catholic, that is, being interested in the kinds of things Catholics are interested in (thus my comments here) because that doesn't arise from my personal choice, but from many centuries of Catholic DNA up my family tree. That's built in. We don't just turn it off with the flip of a switch.
Except, if you are an atheist, your life is not based on logic and reason. At least not that part of it.
Atheism is not reason. Atheism is an ideology which competes with religious ideology.
I don't see an argument here? Just, "oh, you don't have any answers within epistemology, so you are wrong", and "you are just an ill-informed fundamentalist."
I don't care how I sound or people view me. Make your argument.
Quoting Tom Storm
You don't seem to know what the true Scotsman fallacy is. If I define atheism as having a foundation of logic and rational reasoning instead of just a lack of belief in God, that incorporates everyone with a belief that doesn't have a logical foundation for it. Hence, it includes these people. The Scotsman fallacy is if I just say "they aren't true atheists" and don't provide any foundation for that claim, which I have.
Quoting Tom Storm
"It says"? What says? The dictionary? If I question the common definition or layman definition of atheism as being incomplete and include all types of belief and not just God in the equation, then who cares what "it says". I say, I question and I argued for it. What you do is the same kind of "bible says" argument here. But about atheism.
Quoting Tom Storm
The ideal atheist is in my argument the normal atheist. People are prone to label themselves however they want. But if someone says they're now an atheist when stopping to worship god but starts to worship dead deities, new age, or fortune-telling, they are not really doing anything but replacing one faith with another. It doesn't work when defining what atheism is.
Quoting Foghorn
No, they can't, we all live under the weight of history, good or bad. But what does that prove? You basically just say that we are a product of history. Ok, so what? Doesn't mean that moral philosophy isn't better than morality from a religious text. It more or less means that we ditch the books and find out for real what was good or bad in old teachings, or invent new ones where bad and old ones lacked.
Quoting Foghorn
This I absolutely agree with. This is why I think it's good that the bloody history of religion is going out the door so that new generations can grow out without being programmed into this. But it also doesn't mean that we lose history. We can find interest in the old pantheons of the greek and those stories fine, we can find the pantheon of the Edda to be wonderful, without having belief in those things. The same is true about Christianity, Islam etc. Nothing of these religions will be lost, or erased. I think that we might even have more appreciation for the cultural mark on history if we leave the faith behind. I'm neither Christian or Muslim, but when I was in the Anna Sofia mosque in Istanbul, it was a profound experience seeing Christian and Islam design and art in that vast architecture. The experience can be enormous even if faith and belief in God is gone.
Quoting Foghorn
Ok, explain how I cannot live my life like this, this will be interesting. Because I'm very well acquainted with self-reflection. Shoot.
In reality you are worshipping the ideological biographies of dead philosophers.
You make no sense now. I question how much you actually know about philosophy.
Where is the epistemological justification for rationality?
Have you not read your plato? The meno?
Justified true belief stands on an infinite regress unless you have axioms. And what are these axioms and are they
correct or ideological?
Epistemology is reasoning and logically examining the nature of knowledge and how to know. It was an answer to this:
Quoting Trinidad
In epistemology, that's much of what the main questions are about. It examines how we know things, how we can be certain. In any attempt, within an epistemological discussion, to try and justify experience and belief as being superior to reason and logic, it fails. It's the answer to your question.
Quoting Trinidad
Have you read any of the philosophers past the enlightenment era?
So any epistemological proofs for reason?
Quoting Christoffer
All civilisations are built on religious foundations; because attributing moral authority to God, is how hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form the first multi-tribal societies - about 35,000 years after we find evidence of truly human intelligence in the archaeological record.
This was site of Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - not the strong fooled by the weak, but a translation from morality inherent to the structural relations of the kinship tribe, to objectivised social values, attributed to God. Thus, the natural obligation upon anyone hacking away at the pillars of moral authority is that they have some adequate alternative - and this politically correct secular relativism is neither one thing nor another.
Quoting Christoffer
I would raise Stalin and Mao as examples of atheist societies butchering their populations on a scale that make Hitler look like an amateur genocidal nutter! Exactly that, and they're actual examples - to compare to your purely hypothetical atheist societies, you claim are always more peaceful. Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment?
Quoting Christoffer
That's some myopic logic, don't you think? I cannot accept that's how this question presents itself to people. I think maybe, that's how you post-rationalise your deeper motives, but I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God, and so concluding "the burden proof is with the theist, and that shall be an end of the matter!" Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function!
What proof are you talking about? You asked if there were anything that "examines" reason and logic, if that is the foundation for atheism. And the answer is epistemology. What proof is it you are after?
Quoting counterpunch
Nietzsche's inversion of values refers to how Christianity reverses the natural into the opposite. It stems from his contempt for Christianity. Stating the moral system is based on "the contempt of man". The fear I'm referring to is the fear that when a structural moral system is dismantled, however faulty it is, will eventually create a great nihilism within the people if they do not actively examine ethics and form new systems in its place. And what have we've been doing throughout the 20th century? It's exactly this. It was even fueled by the examination of moral decay in Nazi Germany. Almost the entire part of post-WWII philosophy around ethics has revolved around figuring that shit out.
Quoting counterpunch
Here comes the classic guilt by association that is such a drag to always have to explain. The Stalins and Lenins and communist leaders who conducted murder and terror on their people did so under a kind of religious worship of themselves. They didn't build upon an atheist foundation, they built their society around themselves. These are dictators who don't have much to do with Marxism or atheism. Narcissistic personalities who brainwashed their people into a pseudo-religious politic surrounding themselves as deities. Much like how North Korea and Kim Jong Un act right now. I don't see much atheism going around these people. The only thing is that they don't have any old religions present, but that's not the same as an atheistic foundation for their society. I even touched upon this in this very thread in a previous post that you might have missed.
Quoting counterpunch
So this becomes the guilt by association. The classic theist argument that because they claimed to be atheists or built upon it, therefor atheistic societies are evil. It's a stupefyingly bad conclusion that is a giant fallacy. Check how heavily secular societies in the world today fare against heavily religious ones, there's your answer and data.
I have the data on my side of this argument.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies
Quoting counterpunch
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Otherwise I will, in classic terms, claim there's a teapot revolving around the sun between Venus and Mercury. You can't say there's not, you have to prove there's no teapot there! Burden of proof is on the one claiming something, claiming gods existence needs to be proven, the burden of proof is still on theists making claims that they can't prove. This is basic stuff.
Quoting counterpunch
Not in nations that are heavily religious, which I would say even the US is considered to be. In nations like Sweden, many grow up secular, without any concepts of God other than fairy tale concepts of the bible in the same manner as pantheon stories of the Greeks. So what you imagine is irrelevant, we have secular nations in the world where God isn't as common as in religious countries so the concepts in epistemology can definitely come before any concept of God. What you describe is just a projection of your own situation, not the truth.
Quoting counterpunch
I understand its function, where it comes from, how religion and belief evolved, but God and religion is still irrelevant to humanity if we have good non-religious ethics system in place (which we have) and live our lives with self-reflection, skepticism, and a sense of logic and rational reasoning.
The concept of it being necessary is only true for those who cannot imagine a society without it. But some people live their life without it, both on the micro and macro level. This is an undeniable fact. I live my life like this, I have friends living their life like this, and Sweden is considered a secular nation with a very high quality of life. Compare that to heavily religious nations in the world. Check the link I provided.
It's not wise to overvalue the importance of religion without knowing how secular and less religious societies fare.
Please prove that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions. Thank you.
"Justifies reason as being true"? Why are you changing the meaning of what I write? What truth?
You asked:
Whenever you go into epistemology and ask if belief and experience are superior to logic and reason, how would you create such an argument? If you claim this, then please make an epistemological argument in support of it.
let's go
p1. Unsupported belief leads to more unknown consequences.
p2 Supported belief leads to more known consequences.
p3 Unknown consequences have a higher tendency for suffering.
p4 Known consequences have a higher tendency to suppress suffering.
Conclusion: Unsupported beliefs have a higher tendency to cause suffering. Supported beliefs have a higher tendency to suppress suffering.
We could go on with arguments like this but the point is that if you go through epistemological philosophy, there's little support for belief and experience as being superior sources for any kind of decision. It's like basic philosophy to know this. It flows through epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. It's the most foundational idea in philosophy, the foundation for deduction, induction etc. There's rarely any room for belief and experience in any philosophical arguments because they are essentially biases and fallacies at their core.
Quoting Foghorn
Human reason is how we know facts about the world and universe, the very reason you are able to write on a machine right now is because of this. The proof is in the pudding, in the very existence of humanity's achievements. None of this is a result of religion or belief, they're a result of logic, reason, inventions through science.
So if that is true, which we have the world around as proof for, then if we ask what has the highest potential to answer or address the largest of questions we have, is that then religion, belief, and faith? By any logic of this, no. People can find comfort in religion and faith, but not address the questions in any knowledgeable way.
As an example, the nature of life, evolution, physics, and how the universe works are major, huge questions that for many thousands of years were only explained by religion. But with general relativity, Darwin and with modern experiments and tests confirming them over and over, we have essentially answered a lot of questions that were once "large".
So, is human reason, logic etc. qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions? If by meaningful you mean to comfort you, no, fantasies and fairy tales can do that if you don't find meaning in truth and facts, but for anyone that finds meaning in truth and facts, yes, it is absolutely superior to any reasoning through religion or faith. It's what much of the world we live in is built upon.
Faith doesn't start my electric car. It doesn't achieve major shifts in the quality of life. The house I live in is a result of many hundred years of innovation based in reasoning and my good quality of life is a result of all of that, not religion. By answering some of the largest questions, we also produce meaningful consequences for our lives.
So, please disprove and then prove that religion does the same. Especially in regard to how institutionalized religion fought back against human innovation and rational thought until the enlightenment era started to give them the middle finger.
All true. But not proof reason is qualified to meaningfully comment on the very largest of questions.
If you wish to debate a theist, I'm not one. Just so you know.
Another who hasn't understood epistemology.
Quoting Christoffer
It is on your part. It's basic stuff you assume I don't know, because I'm asking you to look beyond such basic arguments. For example:
Quoting Christoffer
Nietzsche was wrong. Nihilism is false. Man in a state of nature was not an amoral, self serving brute - and we can know this because our species survived, generation after generation, raising children - for millions of years. Homo sapiens is a moral creature.
There was an inversion of values - but it wasn't the strong fooled by the weak. It was the difference between hunter gatherer tribal morality - and the morality necessary to multi tribal society. Religion is the first politics - and philosophy, law and economics. Faith is required because of the social significance of the concept; not because of its apparent truth or eminent provability. Indeed, religion seems to go out of its way to stretch credulity! Why? Because belief serves a purpose - and arguably, it's an important purpose that's been displaced without being replaced.
If you accept that the concept of God serves this important purpose - and you may well recognise that it has done, but argue now - philosophy, politics, law, economics have become wholly adequate alternate sources of authoritative value in themselves, as you say here:
Quoting Christoffer
It's not that I'd disagree; per se - but would just point out that humankind is barrelling toward extinction - while the Amish, by comparison - could go on raising barns forever. Their way of life is sustainable, while ours isn't. And that unsustainability, I would argue - is the consequence of a mistaken relationship between religion and science, that is in turn the author of your mistaken relationship to God.
Given apparent design in nature, God is a credible hypothesis explaining existence; the first cause argument is about as reasonable as, and not exclusive of the big bang. You would not conclude an hypothesis is false, simply because it had not been proven true. Epistemically, you'd be agnostic with regard to the validity of the hypothesis - whereas, you positively claim to know there's no God.
Can we have the moderators check for low-quality posts? I'm not sure how to define it anymore.
Quoting counterpunch
I didn't say he was right, psychology has already proven basic morality can arise without any religion or heavy rationalization about ethics. Why I brought up his fear of nihilism is that theists usually show this fear. It's why they always bring up Lenin and Stalin as (ridiculous) examples of how atheism fails as a foundation. The core is that nihilism out no belief and faith leads to murder. It's the same reason why pseudo-philosophers like Jordan Peterson claim that a true atheist is a murderer because he has no morals.
I used it as an example of the absurdity that theists possess when fearing a world built on atheism.
Quoting counterpunch
It has no or serves any purpose anymore. This is the point. In a large society where there are no clear explanations for anything and moral philosophy isn't a thing, there has to be some kind of agreement between people to follow or for them to explain things that force great sorrows onto them. So it makes sense how religion starts, but that doesn't mean it has any purpose existing when rational reasoning and logic have taken its place. We don't need religion to explain things anymore, so the purpose of religion is gone now. We can use methods from religion, such as meditation, as there are physical effects on our well-being that we get out of it, but the faith and belief are gone. It has no meaning when we have other methods and tools to explain the unexplainable or can be calm in accepting something as unknown until we know more.
The only purpose of belief is the psychological factor, how it can calm certain people. But I can't see how that can't be replaced by meditation and other forms of practice. Most of the time, people who need the relief of faith just have bad mentors who can't articulate support or guidance without the concept of faith intertwined.
Quoting counterpunch
By what measurement are we doing that? Apart from insane politicians with the hand on the button and capitalist scumbags who rather burn the world for a profit, there's little to support the world getting worse. Quality of life is increasing around the world. To say that humankind is barrelling toward extinction needs some supporting data.
Quoting counterpunch
Unsupported assumptions. Where's the data that they would survive and we won't? And why would that have anything to do with a relationship between science and religion? Nothing of what you write here has any substance, it's just "end is nigh" speculation without substance.
Quoting counterpunch
Oh no, the old first cause argument. It's disproven all the time without theists caring for the lack of logic. First cause doesn't point to any God at all. It points to there being a starting point, something that kickstarted the dominos, but that could be an interdimensional rock of unknown material as well, which is as far from "God" as you can get. And you explain nature as designed and therefor there must be a God and... got damn it, there's no logic here, there's nothing to support any of what you are writing now and you're just proving my point of the illogical fallacy and biased nature of theists. It's not philosophy, it's a mockery of philosophy to just puke words about connections between nature and God and first cause.
I don't have to make an argument anymore you are proving my point yourself.
Quoting counterpunch
There's a teapot between Mercury and Venus and you can't prove me wrong! And if you can't prove me wrong then I am right. Why are we still tolerating this kind of stupidity in philosophy? I don't know. The burden of proof is on you to prove God's existence. I cannot have a burden of proof to disprove something that isn't first proven. I must provide evidence for a teapot between Venus and Mercury before I can claim it to be true, and then you have the burden of proof to prove that wrong. But I can't demand that you need to disprove me if I've provided no proof to you. This is like kindergarten-level philosophy. This is why I can't take theists seriously and why I don't think theism should be considered philosophy, it disregards everything that is a foundation for philosophical praxis, and for some unknown reason, it is tolerated. For me, this is all evangelistic nonsense that has no place in contemporary philosophy. Let the theists play in their bubble called something else than philosophy.
180 has given his argument valid logical form. Of course the argument is empty. As they are both aware, valid does not mean sound. But note that 180 inserts "not valid" as a parenthesis. It is still up to 3017 to demonstrate that the major premise is not only false but illogical. It remains to be seen if or how he will do this.
Save your preaching for the sheep.
Ah now that's interesting. I wonder how common this is.
Why would I want to?
Please continue with the low-quality posts. You add nothing to the discussion and no real counterarguments. I refer you to previously written posts to produce some valid counter arguments before putting in any more time on your discussion.
Quoting Trinidad
I thought that was your thing... just words, no substance, logic or meaning.
Quoting counterpunch
So your counterargument is that you don't want to? The point is that burden of proof is on the one claiming something. You claim the existence of God, then the burden of proof is on you. If you don't even know Russell's teapot I understand why you are confused, but it proves my point even better. In contemporary philosophy, theism is a joke. The scrutiny required for the level of philosophy done today requires much more than theists can manage to provide.
That's me, too. My parents would play the Christmas/Easter game long after they knew that I knew where the presents/Easter eggs really came from. I just assumed that was the same sort activity. It's not quite as simple, as at some point in my mental development I must have learned to distinguish fact from fiction. For example, I remember "praying" (say, asking God to help me pass a test, or something) before falling asleep, without believing that anyone actually listened. That was just the shape of my anxiety. A bit like knocking on wood, if you know what I mean. That behaviour fell away as I grew older, but there was never a moment when I "stopped believing". It feels more like a slow differentiation process between fact and fiction, and the distinction growing more important as I grew older. There was definitely a period where I slowly (not all at once) realised, wait, they're serious. I remember fretting about telling my parents that I don't believe. I don't remember a moment when I stopped believing. All that is just an ex-post narrative; these are early memories and unreliable. But I definitely grew into atheism through exposure to theism. Theism just didn't stick, and I had to learn to live with it not sticking: going to church and being bored, making up stuff to confess just so I have something to say, saying sappy stuff during preparation for confirmation. Oddly enough, as a teenager (definitely during confirmation preparation), I was open about being atheist, but nobody made life hard for me (even priests seemed more intrigued than anything else). I wonder if people were hoping for fake-it-unti-you-make-it? I can't ever remember having any sort of disadvantage for being an atheist (I'm Austrian, for what it's worth. Roughly 70 % Roman Catholics when I was a child, I think.)
I'm no stranger to flying spaghetti monsters, and the like. And I'm not a theist. Do try to keep up! I'm agnostic, questioning your atheism. You introduced 'what theists think' as a strawman; rather than taking on the more challenging task of proving your atheist knowledge claim, when really, if your position is based in a logical epistemology, you should admit you don't know! Consequently, I feel entitled to suggest that your atheism is motivated, and I wonder by what? You seem very keen to defend communism!
With hindsight I'm wondering why it was such a shock when my best friend told me he believed in God. But I think you and Pfhorrest are both a testament to the way children can absorb ritual and mythology.
I'm thinking about Evelyn Waugh's tremendous novel Brideshead Revisited. In case you haven't read it, it's anti-atheist stance is very peculiar for focussing on the comfort of religious ritual in the face of the abject stupidity of theology. Waugh (himself a liberal, intellectual Christian) wasn't denying that the content of Christianity is bunkum, but that the solace of its artefacts and gestures was negligible.
Maybe that accounts for some of the difference. For us, a tabernacle just isn't very emotive.
Quoting Dawnstorm
In the west, anti-atheist sentiment seems to me an American thing. I dare say it would be harder to run for government here in the UK if you were openly an atheist, but you'd not lose the job if the press found it out. Weirdly the one place where Western anti-atheist is the norm has the least Christian Christians in the world.
3017 thinks he can we by decree "let it be established". He really has done a very poor job of it.
But perhaps some here think that he has won or is winning.
[quote=3017] Here's the classic ontological argument based upon the same logico-deductive reasoning:
1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.[/quote]
This seems very odd reasoning because no one can even begin to imagine God. It’s like saying that someone can imagine the entire universe, but no more than the entire universe. There is more to the universe than any human being could begin to imagine.
So lets take a poll, maybe a mod could make one in the OP of this thread.
Who won the debate? Sound off everyone.
My take is Amen didn’t show up to the debate. Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. That's what it looked like to me.
As I predicted, condescending and disingenuous was met with short patience and dismissal. Same old shit.
I was so hoping that we could get an honest discussion from Amen but we did not. He did declare himself the winner though which was pretty funny. Im sure we will be hearing about how it wasnt fair and 180 was the one who didnt show up and how atheist should try and calm down and think rationally and blah blah blah.
Sounds like an accurate description to me.
:up:
Poor fool doesn't understand that he has been thrashed.
I guess he only needs to fool himself.
Its pretty bizzare that he could conclude “we’ve” conceded to an even score based on whats in that thread. Private messages maybe?
Originally he said he won by TKO which is even more preposterous. His last comment was vomit inducing. Just gross.
Kindly put, he is full of it. Lived down to my expectations anyhow.
Come on.
Edit: That was a bit unfair on Hangover. He called a forfeit, which 3017 thinks is a draw.
More evidence of the brilliance of 3017's thought processes. Not a good ad for theism, I say.
If we can make this @Hanover's fault, I'd be totally up for that. :victory:
I think there were parameters about his role we aren’t privy to, limiting his responses.
The interesting part to me is how people like Amen cannot recognize how disingenuine they are being, blind to their dishonest engagement. What do you call that, and what do you say to them? Trying to help them see it is just seen as an attack, a mean angry atheist attack that…I don’t know I guess they feel justified acting like cunts in return?
Does Amen really think he acted fairly and in good faith in that? Its just so hard for me to believe he does yet its just as hard for me to believe someone would be so committed to trolling or-messing around.
Religion right? Straight up mind poison.
Well you gave him the rope I suppose.
Goodness. You are providing your definition of atheism which includes an epistemology and it sounds like you can see that. Your definition is more of an ideal atheist: as you see it.
A no true Scotsman fallacy happens when someone hears a description of the characteristics of X and argues that 'they're are not X' (because the description doesn't suit the person's preferred understanding and argument).
I'll remind you of what you said:
Quoting Christoffer
You don't own the definition of atheism. If someone says they are an atheist and they don't believe in god, they are an atheist. Period. They may be an untheorized atheist, but so what? Atheism may have an ideal form (humanism and skepticism) but that's not what we were talking about.
About 50% of atheists I have met at freethinkers forums/events over 40 years and the like have no or little interest in logical foundations. They may be inchoate but they are still atheists. I was an atheist for 20 years before I ever examined reason and logic.
Having a debate about why so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow.
I think the term used locally is "fuckwit".
Quoting DingoJones Nothing, were possible.
Edit: Yep.
Because atheists are people and most people can’t really justify their positions.
Well stated post btw.
American Atheists definition of atheism:
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system
:100:
When the debate was set up, specific parameters were agreed upon, and I did indicate the moderator's role would be the same in the debate thread as any other thread, limited to enforcing the site guidelines. There were no violations there.
As a general matter, I also think community feedback is more effective and credible than authority declarations by staff. Whether i say something is bullshiit isn't any more critical than any other voice in the choir.
If everyone got their say and everything was exposed, then it was a good day.
But to make good on the debate that never was, I challenge @180 Proof to a duel! If yes, we'll iron out the details. 3017 will moderate it.
Last line a joke. The rest is for real.
Takes one to know one. What was your greatest fuck-witted feat?
Supposing that you were worthy of a reply.
Ohhh. Did you stump your toe or something?
You issued the challenge, so @180 Proof gets the choice of weapon.
Should 180 honour me by choosing me as his second, I'd recommend Socratic Irony at thirty paces.
I'm just happy that could never happen in this thread. Phew!! :-)
it's "...stub..."
Ah. Well we're getting our climate change on over here.
The mosquitoes will rule.
180 Proof, on the other hand, has difficulty in speaking humanese, or else has an easy way of speaking his own language.
Pitting the two against each other had got to be a hoot. I did not even have to read one single solitary line in the debate to see that. I am still laughing, albeit inwardly, not outwardly.
They already had humans build many, many mosques.
I see you haven't had a lot to do with chickens. Except perhaps in the pot.
:lol:
So accurate.
The fighter in black asks who should throw the first punch, and the fighter in white volunteers.
The fighter in white asks to confirm that the fighter in black would prefer to defend against a left jab.
The fighter in black denies that he has such a preference.
The fighter in white asks what kind of attack he should throw then.
The fighter in black says “whatever man, just try to hit me with something.”
The fighter in white declares round one a draw, still yet to throw a punch.
Lol, we are having way too much fun at his expense. Its not mean if its accurate…right?
Chicken shit!
I'm not only questioning theist's perspective and straw-manning of atheism, I'm also questioning many atheist's perspectives on defining it. If atheism is only about a lack of belief in a God or Gods, then what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with? Atheism is the closest definition of such a person and dividing it into "normal" atheists that can include absolute superstitious fanatics, with "ideal" atheists that are more close to the core of what atheism should be defined as, muddies the water and makes it very unclear as to how the opposing worldviews between atheism and theism work.
If we are talking about defining a concept, there are no real facts other than how society decides to define a concept. There's no "fact" that atheism is defined in a certain way, and possible it is defined differently in a heavily religious nation compared to a secular one. Dictionaries change all the time through cultural movements. When atheism was coined as a term, there was pretty much only the dichotomy of belief in God and a lack of belief in God. Today, if someone puts down tarot cards, starts fortune-telling in coffee stains, and wants to eat dirt to heal her aura, I don't think such a person can be attributed with the definition of atheist, regardless of what not-up-to-date dictionaries outlines.
Quoting Tom Storm
So how do you define someone who is living by reason, rationality, facts of the world, and logic? As opposed to living with pure unsupported belief? Because if we go by your loose definitions, then you are putting me in the same category as some lunatic fortune-teller. And sure, by self-reflection, I'm doing it to, lumping together believers in God with everyone else who has an unsupported belief.
What's the answer to this? If atheism and theism aren't broad opposing concepts then how do we broadly define what you define as an ideal atheist? I make a clear separation between atheism and theism and any other unsupported belief. It makes the arguments clear.
The reason I don't think the Scotsman fallacy applies is that an atheist who believes in other supernatural things or even gods that are not part of any live religion today is much closer to theism and those belief systems. They use the same kind of arguments, the same kind of justification for their beliefs. And even if we define atheism by the classic "lack of belief in God" then how can we have belief systems within atheism that are just as unsupported as in that classical definition?
An ideal atheist is the norm definition of an atheist.
Imagine that all current religions go out of fashion, they become dead religions, and a thousand years from now we have a new religion with a new "God". If Atheism is only defined in relation to current Gods, then atheism can't exist as a concept in opposition to that new religion.
And what about Buddhism? There are no Gods there, but it's still in opposition with atheism. An atheist Buddhist doesn't exist. So how do you define an atheist in relation to Buddhism?
Quoting Tom Storm
I know what I said, and just as a racist saying "I'm not a racist", a person saying "I'm an atheist" and then lays tarot cards and start talking in tongues because they think there's an entity flowing through the quantum realm, is not an atheist. You misuse the Scotsman fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
I have clearly defined the line where you go from atheism to something else. So I'm not shifting any goalposts (like described in the link), I'm stating that any unsupported belief in entities, gods, supernatural, superstitious, or whatever unsupported belief you can think of, adheres more to theism than atheism. And that dismissing any unsupported belief that can't be justified with reason, rationality, and logic adheres to atheism.
Quoting Tom Storm
What does this have to do with "owning" a definition? I criticize a muddy definition that incorporates new agers and other wackos into the same category as atheists. As I said: if someone says "I'm no racist" when they clearly are, they are still a racist. People can say that they are whatever they want, but having a quantum-squid-entity worshipper who lays tarot cards call themselves an atheist becomes absurd.
To say that someone can call themselves whatever they want is not an argument in this discussion, it has nothing to do with the points I'm making. If we are to have a discussion about atheism, it has to be clearly defined. I don't think aunt Clarice with her "cat god of venus" applies to atheism and using her will to claim herself to be an atheist has no relevance.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's not about an active or conscious way of using reason and logic as a calculus during the waking hours. The reason, rationality, and logic I talk about are how you approach everyday stuff with skepticism, with a clear opposition towards believing anything at face value. If an atheist didn't live by this, they would start to believe things that are unsupported, including the supernatural. It's not about "interest in logic", it's about the inner workings of an atheist's thought process. It's that if someone claims something, the atheist doesn't just nod and accept it as true, the foundational thought process questions everything until there's evidence or logic behind a claim.
Quoting Tom Storm
Justify what? That I deny the truth value of any claim that doesn't have a rational, logical foundation for it? I justify myself as an atheist by not accepting anything as true or likely to be true just because someone say it is.
Sure, you have a point that I might create a concept of the ideal atheist, but there's no clear definition of what a person who lack unsupported belief is. And that kind of person is by definition an atheist anyway. So even if there's something added to include the lack of any kind of unsupported belief, not just in "God", that person is still at the foundation, an atheist. I just don't agree that aunt Clarice and her cat God can call herself an atheist, it's very much far from what defines an atheist.
So a Buddhist atheist can therefore exist? Or someone believing there's a quantum-entity-cat flowing through the Higgs boson field is also an atheist because that's not directly a God?
If I reject any kind of belief that isn't supported, reject belief systems all-together other than a supported belief that can be rationally justified, i.e a hypothesis, what am I?
If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I?
I grew up with the stories about how they had to ring their necks.
I'm sort of a vegetarian now, except I eat eggs.
A disputant in search of an argument?
I suggest you read about secular humanism, this is the worldview you seem to have in mind.
Your other ideas might make a good new thread for those wanting to explore atheism more fully. I just wanted to explore the definition, a job I believe has been covered.
Quoting Christoffer
Buddhism is often described as an atheistic religion.
Quoting Christoffer
A theist in denial.
Yes, I know that. I'm trying to find out how people define atheism when it seems possible to believe in something that is by all definitions a God, but the only thing that is different is that they claim it not to be a God, even though everything about it is.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, but do you see the apparent contradiction in such a description?
Quoting Tom Storm
But by the definition that an atheist can hold different belief systems, just that they share the lack of belief in God or Gods, then an atheist with a belief system around that example who just reject the idea that it is a God, can't be an atheist, but theist, right?
How then can we have atheists with different belief systems? Isn't everything collapsing into pure semantics with no clear meaning of any definitions?
[quote=Nyanoponika Therea, Buddhism and the God Idea; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html] Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in.[/quote]
Let's hope so for all our sakes.
Quoting Nyanoponika Therea, Buddhism and the God Idea
II was expecting this.
*sigh*
Quoting Tom Storm
I am not bashing on Buddhism. In any sense, for me as an atheist, it's the only major religion close to any rationality in the world today.
But it is still a religion, with practices that can come in conflict with pure reason and rationality. Like, reincarnation, how do we combine that with atheism?
I'm trying to get some clarifications on the definitions people have, because I think there's no point in trying to argue about theism and atheism when people have muddy definitions in the first place.
If you want to mock me then go ahead, that would just clarify your level in this discussion.
All these perspectives are rooted in faith, so any perceived difference is an illusion, or at least a substantial exaggeration. Faith is the human condition. There's no running from it.
Faith is the human condition for a simple reason. We want to know everything, we can't help it. And there's lots and lots of things we don't know, and many we probably can't know.
I'm not religious myself, only incurably philosophical. But, imho, generally speaking religion has a pretty realistic understanding of the human condition. The evidence for this is that religion has thrived in every time and place for a very long time. No perspective that was way out of touch with the realities of being human would have accomplished that.
Think of it this way. If religion was a creature, we would have to admit it's very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind.
Obviously my lack of experience, but what does a draw even mean? Not upheld but not rejected?
It means a tie, like if the final score is 1 to 1.
My question was what this means in the context of the debate. I know what it means in the context of soccer because that has an established scoring system. The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not.
I guess in competitive debates like in high school, they actually judge them and declare winners. In other debates, like presidential ones, each side gets to argue they won. In this one, 3017 is arguing he got a draw, so I guess ask him how he scored it.
I concede. I'm not mentally or emotionally prepared for asking 3017 anything today, I suspect it will end in my tears (rocking a hangover Hanover).
To be quite honest, it's entirely pointless to try and score it by formal criteria because @3017amen did not stick to the agreed topic from their opening post and offered no on topic counterpoints even after 180 engaged the distorted topic.
Ideally if you want to have a formal debate, at least agree to the topic and a strict format beforehand and stick to it. If you are unable or unwilling to even try and do that don't waste our time by getting us to set up a formal debate.
#irrationally angry because I've not seen a long form 180proof post in years and wanted to see one again.
new member here!
So, I read the beginning and the end of this thread and it seems to me that (as norm) the "discussion" went south. :smile:
But I have a question to both believers in God and atheists - an answer to this I did not see nor find and which is the most important for both atheists and believers: God. Who is he: definition?
In short: a definition of who we are supposed to discuss about here?
Someone?
I was thinking about this and found that it’s actually difficult to not imagine something greater than God, because for there to be something definable as God there must be some kind of delineation or boundary, so we’re always (infinitely) forced to imagine what’s beyond that boundary.
The proposition was that atheism is illogical, so it's any normal-use definition of a deity, not just a particular one. I personally define God as 180proof, which is how I'd have kicked his ass. I ain't listenin to anyone who says they don't exist.
I mean if a believer does not know who he/she believes in - and the atheist does not know either who or what they refute - what is going on?
So if there is a definition that atheists use - what is that definition?
I would honestly like to know...
But that's already a good reason to reject the proposition: if it is too badly defined. Also, you don't need a complete description. I can reject the proposition that a magical man in the sky made the world and the stars and the animals and us by conscious design just based on what I know about the sky, the world, the stars, animals and us. I don't need to know the nature or extent or origin of the magic, or what sort of skyhouse the man lives in, or what his favourite colour is.
A naturalist or physicalist or something in that ballpark.
I guess since nothing has yet been proposed, that nonexistent proposition can’t be either supported or not, which leaves a score of 0 to 0, as initially.
:smile:
aaa... so you reject a magic man in the sky? I guess that most of the serious believers do share your point of view...
But seriously - what or who is God?
Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject?
Or do they reject - as do most serious believers - a magic man on a cloud with a white long beard
:rofl:
That he can be said to exist when he can't even be described. Things do exist. If God is one of those things, say an apple, then he does exist. But I don't believe that an apple created the universe.
there are lots of things we do assume exist but cannot be defined nor describe completely - our consciences is one of these things - and we have several of those within theoretical physics - but you would not say they do not exist (take black holes - they are only recently "seen" or said to actually exist) - and within physics they keep on looking for them because they believed - so if an atheist does not look how are they going to find?
They clearly have some vague notion of some being from which everything came and for the sake of which everything is purposed, some fuzzy answer at the end of the chains of “how?” and “why?” that prompt all of philosophy, which naturalistic accounts don’t suffice for.
An atheist doesn’t believe in whatever that’ll supposed to be. Doesn’t think an explanatory of what is or what ought to be requires some vague ultimate answer in the form of a person: the usual kinds of answers will do.
so the serious believers normally gave the atheists what they build their atheism on?
Strange...
:wink:
The Big Bang is speculative. It's an unsettled area of physics, so it's not really a foundation for anything and hasn't been digested by the scientific method.
wut
you learn how to view something according to someones theory (a bit like the Bible you know - some one writes down some theory about some phenomenon)
then you deepen your knowledge in regard to that theory and others similar
then you propose - on that very basis - something
know you look for what you have predicted
when you find what you expected - you might say: it is proven
What?
The theory you know, of which you expect something? Yeah... right... so?
180 asked to leave it open a bit longer to see if 3017 has more to say, so with that I'll leave it open a bit longer.
Atheists put their faith in theories and methods given to them from the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy: Mendel, Bacon etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
And have no definition of the god they refute = unknown god is refuted.
And thus this is logical?
Would have fooled me...:rofl:
Well... where does that all leave an atheist?
I'd reject the notion that God isn't well defined under the various traditions, even if there remain some unknowns. I also think there are substantial enough differences between Jewish thought and Christian thought on this that you can't group God under a single Judeo-Christian definition.
I do agree though that for meaningful debate on whether acceptance or rejection of God is rational, you must have a working metaphysical definition of "God," with the debate then centering on the epistemological question of whether the position taken is rational, or is at least consistent with the manner in which other things are said to be known.
The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," which makes his position far more difficult than the agnostic's.
You'll find lots of conversations about consciousness on here and people frequently have to define what they mean: a panpsychist, a solipsist, a dualist and a neuroscientist aren't likely to agree much on what it is, but they know why they mean. Or some of them do, anyway. There are ample philosophical and scientific papers in journals that rely on a common understanding of what consciousness is.
The OP mentioned logic. Rationality is a different issue.
Belief in God can be embraced in either fashion: rationally or irrationally.
Rationality doesn't require more than that one believes experts endorse it.
For instance, everyone believes the earth is a sphere, but few could explain why. Their belief is rational due their faith in experts.
It is irrational to assert a proposition one doesn't understand, though. So an atheist should have a very clear idea of what they're rejecting. Otherwise, they are guilty of irrational belief.
I had my own conversation with 3017 a while back where I put forward my own complete review of all the different things one might mean by “God”, and reasons to reject either (1) that such a thing exists or (2) that such a thing is rightly called “God” in a sense that can differentiate between theists and atheists:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7860/on-the-existence-of-god-by-request
The atheist affirmation begins before that. The affirmation begins when the atheist affirms that they have a qualified method of addressing the question. And then, from that first affirmation, using that method they declare to be qualified, they then go on to some level of doubt or outright rejection of the theist claim.
I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate. Or is that debate a comfortable familiar routine which provides the entertainment users seek? Is the debate as it is sufficient, and thus there is no problem here which requires a solution?
As example, a card game that has predictable rules. Some people might find the old game boring and wish to invent a new game, whereas others would prefer to play the game they already know.
Perhaps such a question needs it's own thread?
Quoting frank
I know, and I'd step back from that because we don't prove things by pure logic alone in many instances (ala Descartes) without reliance upon some empirical data or some amount of faith. If I can't prove God exists by logic alone (ala Anselm), that is no more a problem than that I can't prove trees exist by logic alone.
Quoting frank
If you have no justification for your belief, your knowledge is lacking (where K=JTB). If you have no definition for what you're rejecting, your belief is incoherent.
One criteria for the contingent existence of matter is their substantial change. All that arises starts its existence or perishes - does thus not exist with necessity - but can or can not exist.
Some things are contingent without having come into existence because if we think that something non necessary exists we do not have to assume that this x also has arisen in time.
To cause something to exist is not the same as that same something has arisen at some point of time and that this same something is maintained in the existence.
That which is contingent exist must if we follow that line have come into existence ultimately caused by that which is not contingent.
If we accept that the universe could or could not exist and thus does not exist with necessity - then we must assume the existence of the Absolute.
The absolute exists by necessity and is the cause of its own existence and causes all other contingent to come into existence.
Clicked on the link, but didn't see your comments. What page of the thread are you referencing?
As in what?
If a reader finds themselves satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general, then there is no problem which requires a solution. No need to go further. That debate is readily available on every philosophy forum already.
If a reader is not satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate, then there are various possibilities. Maybe they are already searching for an alternative, maybe they already have an alternative, maybe it hasn't occurred to them that an alternative could be possible. Maybe they wish to invest time in this, maybe they don't.
Apologies, don't understand your question.
Not a suggestion. A question. Do readers find the theist vs. atheist debate in general to be an adequately satisfying investigation of such issues?
The price tag for hearing what I would propose is to answer the question, which readers are free to do or not as they wish, with my blessings in any case.
Yeah, not interested anymore.
I apologize, but I won't be able to answer the "who is God" question. Would if I could, but I am not myself a god, so...
Ok, cool, thanks for your clear answer.
:rofl:
Descartes said God exists by definition.
Its not one particular god an atheist for which they lack belief, its all of them. Not Zeus, not Odin, not Ra, not Yaweh…none of them. Not mother nature, not Giaea, not the combined love of all mankind or universal mystery. All colourful flights of fancy the atheist does not believe in.
Asking an atheist to define the god they do not believe in is like asking someone who doesnt watch TV which shows they don’t watch on TV. None, they don’t watch TV.
The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence.
Just start a new thread. If you build it, they will come.
But only if what you say is worthwhile.
That's ok. You start it. :-)
What?
Quoting Foghorn
SO this had no real content? You've nothing?
If I were to start such a thread....
This is what you'd do with it.
Indeed.
None of us are interested in fishing out whatever genius you're withholding, now or ever. It's kinder I tell you rather than passively ignore you, which is what comes next.
Right. None of us are interested. We're in agreement. There is no melodrama here folks. Time to move along.
This is recorded by the Church and they call these humans saints.
The God they identify - regardless of where they were born or if they were atheists, secular, jews, muslims or what ever they were is Jesus.
Most of these humans (and I have heard lots of these testimonies on youtube and such) did not go to christian gatherings or such - but had a direct unexpected experience and identify this entity the same way.
Why can there be no credibility for this?
So whatever you are suggesting that will bring some new thoughts to mind: go for it - and I will want to see where this takes us --- and I will maintain a critical mind. So, go and we will see where this then ends. I will follow and speak my mind in regard to what ever you propose.
This is really a very strange reason you are giving me - and if this is the reason "atheists reject all gods regardless, even if we do not know how to distinguish between them" it seems childlike to me.
Just like a little child saying: no no no I don't --- and you ask: what more exactly do you not - and they say: whatever.
Seems irrational to me, thus illogically to refute all you do not even know how to distinguish between.
If you do not know something you refute it?!
Right?
Well, yes, this is what I have encountered when I started studies within philosophy - that most humans reject and refute some sort of mental image of metaphysics - like bogus - and what they refute is their own lack of knowledge of the subject matter they normally when I ask them: can you please define what you think metaphysics is? They actually have no answer to it and react like children and say: well I refute that ...
What?
Metaphysics..
Yeah, but tell me what you think that is...
No, just accept I refute it...
Okay... :smile:
So this sort of proceeder to state what you think you understood - is a good way to go. I will not ignore anyone. That is some sort of child play and immature. Do not want to partake there. But thanks for that invitation. Would not apply it to anyone though in this time of cancel culture. Do not partake in ignoring those who might give me inputs I do not even seek out - because they are unknown to me.
Want to be open and be able to discuss all with a critic mind and form my own opinions.
Explain so that I can understand how you think... because I cannot understand that sort of behavior? Do you folks only want to get your thoughts verified by those who say what you want to hear or listen to?
You don't seem to be doing a very good job of ignoring me. :-)
Right?
Right?
Or what else?
You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy.
Had science had been recognised as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine truth, it seems to me that a sense of telos would follow from the relationship between the surviving organism, and causal reality in evolution; in that the organism must necessarily evolve toward a valid relationship with reality, in its design and behaviour in order to survive.
For homo sapiens, it's not merely physiological and behavioural - but also intellectual. Knowing what's scientifically true and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true - applying technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality, would have made a paradise of the world. Again, implying the purpose of following in the knowledge of the Creator, given to humanity to understand.
I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow.
You ask a lot of questions which is fine, especially if they are genuine - but how about giving us something to actually chew on? In relation to the subject of God, what do you believe and why?
That is, itself, an irrational belief.
Should I first write a definitive history of the Church in diary form, explaining day by day - everything that occurred from the establishing of the Papal Court of the Inquisition in 1235, 6th September about 4 'o clock in the afternoon, through the trial of Galileo, 1635, unto the present day, to support a claim that religion has a problem with science? You're deflecting!
Answer the argument - that religion jealously guarded any sense of telos as its own sacred ground, and science wasn't allowed the least implication beyond its practical applications in industry, such that your criticism, that science has no telos is a fait accompli.
It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences.
You’re like.a tonsured cleric hammering the pulpit. Heresy!
Quoting Wayfarer
WF speaks to an impoverished view of evolution. It's true, that evolution is driven by random genetic mutation, and has no particular destination in mind, but nonetheless, even the most primitive organism had to be correct to reality, that is - capable of surviving to reproduce within the physical, chemical, and increasingly biological reality of its surroundings. Those that were unsuitable were rendered extinct, over and over - a filtering process that; while based on blind forces, occurs in relation to a reality with definite characteristics. In short, the fact science excludes teleological assumptions from its methodology, does not mean a scientific understanding of reality, does not have teleological implications.
It is an irrational belief that a theory of a non-teleological universe is inherently irrational.
Our own superficial being and what we can gain the short time here is our goal. Sadly.
What is a human? Well now, we have the narratives from Mr Darwin to guide us - don't we... or we are guided by the narratives of Mr Marx or Mr Locke on how to live together, or we are guided by some mans thought on something we hold true.
Don't we...
I believe we do not know everything - but that the notion of believing that we do know everything gives us this security we need to exist in a world that is unpredictable and difficult to navigate in.
And we do navigate.
But none of that has to do with what I pointed out.
And if your argument isn't really in opposition to what I said, but rather stating a new argument about the nature of living as I described it and that one cannot live by rationality, reason, and logic as a foundation because you lose the "why" of existence, any sense of telos, then that is simply wrong.
It is entirely possible to find meaning in the things that purely are, the exact nature of everything, without applying any further concepts to it in order to sense a meaning. You can absolutely accept that our existence is basically meaningless, absolutely pointless, but still invent a why your existence is meaningful to you rooted in what already exists, in of itself.
The struggle to find a "why" of existence is futile if that search is trying to externalize the meaning of our existence. To invent a God, or being that can answer us why, and to imagine an answer that will be understandable to all at the end of time. It is basically just a psychological life crisis that takes shape in such a futile attempt to desperately find meaning. There's absolutely nothing in the universe observed so far to suggest or hint at any such cosmic meaning of existence.
The problem is that people are psychologically unable to accept the disappointing truth of existence, so they invent a comfort, a drug, a blanket to hide under so as to not have to deal with such a cosmic horror of pointlessness. But the biggest problem with this isn't that everything is pointless, it's that few attempts are made to be satisfied, ok with this fact, and find meaning in the truth and existential situation that purely is as it is. The world is what it is, existence is no more or less than what you can experience through life. So find meaning in the things that do exist, in the intoxication of fantasy, art, imagination, without deluding such ideas to be true, a world within that is limitless, without having any cosmic meaning in of itself.
I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning. For me, it's pointless to muddy the sense of reality more than it already is with our limited senses of perception. If the line between what is true, or likely, and our fantasy, imagination, and art is blurred, we get delusions of existence.
Living with rationality, reason and logic as the foundation, means living with an exact line drawn so as to not be deluded by concepts that are closer to madness (by the definition of the word) than reality.
But - if everything is (because we can imagine it to so) without goal and without any sort of meaning, and all is just due to a stochastic variable - why did we not stay apes? They do actually walk on two legs but do still not have (nor do ravens - the smartest bird (animal) alive) the capacity of abstract thought and written language what will enable them to give their knowledge to their offsprings - and they cope and live in reality - MUCH BETTER than we humans do.
So why this joke (humans are a joke in this world being meaningless and giving in to what ever they see and want anyways) that is destroying the planet with our lust for all we see and can possess?
But (as I already suggested in another post in this thread) humans seem to experience God - have done and still do.
And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT?
These testimonies do beg a question: if they are true then what?
It is precisely the view advocated by Dawkins & Dennett to liberate mankind from the delusion of spirituality.
See you in the gutter, we'll see if then you can still be so smugly satisfied with pointlessness.
Well to be fair, many, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens too.
Quoting Iris0
Muslims and Jesus? You sure? Islam describes Jesus as a profit who was not the son of God nor did he get crucified. Don't forget the Hindus who experience Brahma and Vishnu too.
Quoting Iris0
You're on a philosophy forum. If they are true.... then your life changes forever, no? Belief can be yours too.
Enter the difference between God and demigods.
By definition, anything that happens has, obviously, been allowed for by God (for whatever reasons perhaps only known to him). This is why God is mostly an entirely useless concept with next to no explanatory power.
A demigod, ie. a very powerful entity, on the other hand, is a much more useful concept. For demigods take sides, give, take, condemn, punish; demigods do what humans normally do, but with much more power and resources.
I guess that when most people claim to believe in God, they're actually professing belief in a demigod.
When people bemoan the lack of justice or wellbeing in the world and how such is proof that God doesn't exist, or doesn't care, or is powerless, or is a psychopath, they are actually talking about a demigod.
You mention Darwin and how he lost his faith in God. This is a good example of someone losing faith in a demigod (whom he previously mistook for God).
So it is like a sort of horizon we are trying to catch but will not be able - and this keeps us open.
I took the case with the Black Holes - they kept on looking even if no one had seen one - and it made them discover lots of things they otherwise would not have looked for.
That is good... but if our lives anyway are useless and meaningless - why knowledge? It does then all not serve any purpose either - other than technology? Right...
What is then the meaning of all if we do not stay open?
The logic of (this is the theme of this thread as I understand it) atheism is to close that horizon and say it just does not exist and as Dawkins said: now we do not have to worry... about what?
For me it seems illogical to close doors you have not even opened... or you tried to open but your rationality did not cope with them - and thus you let your LIMITS rule you?
Why?
Does not make sense to me.
No, I'm saying I want to see if the other poster can still be so calm and confident even when he is in the gutter.
People sometimes brag that they can handle the meaniglessness of life and that they don't need crutches like religion. Sure, as long as their health and wealth are still relatively intact, that long it's fun to be a nihilist. But what happens to those people when, for one reason or another, they lose that health and wealth?
:wink:
I don't need to see this I already assumed it was converts. Just as there are Christians who convert to Buddhism following an 'experience'. And Christians who convert Islam.
But the world of the invisible is larger for us than the world of visible - because all our feelings and thoughts and such are - invisible... and we make them real. We talk about them we show them and we actualize them...
I don't know. Do they?
By the way the numbers of Muslims who convert to atheism is significant also. They also are threatened by death. What do we conclude here?
Visions and dreams? Big deal. I have heard many of these stories from Christians who have converted to other religions too. Some of them I have met and interviewed.
Tell me if you know the answer...
It’s a big term. Try googling it.
Quoting Christoffer
‘inventing a why’ is a precise definition of subjectivism.
All I said was, what you mean by ‘rationalism’ is really ‘positivism’, and nothing you’ve said there really defrays that.
That is a question that assumes there's one answer when you must realise that people do things for many reasons. Conversion stories seem to have a hold on you - why would that be?
Firstly, many people who are secular have no real scientific knowledge or interest and are not well educated and in fact do not have the answers. They often don't even have the right questions. They hold their secular views because of socialization rather than hard won knowledge. Such people can be easily swayed.
People change their beliefs in every direction all the time. From religion to atheism. Form homophobia to tolerance. From left wing to right wing. From making money to giving back. So what?
I do not state I know all and thus I can rule out something --- as the rest of humans regardless they are godbesivers of some sort or not.
Give me what science at the core has that I have not studied and found circular - and I will give you right.
if the life of mankind is just a joke of meaningless endlessness of doing what enters the eyes and our mouth (nature)- why are we not still apes - they are much better adapted to just - being (the core of most religion = learn just to be in the fleeing now) and why do we have this endless search for meaning when it is meaningless? And what goal is there if there is no goal given that humans seem to need goals.
The scientific method preconceives of what we know, and what we know is preconceived in what we have learned in regard to ourselves and the universe - and how to understand it. Who comes out of that circle?
You seem to be swerving all over the place with your ideas. Are you ok?
If you are looking for certainty you'll readily find it if you can accept fundamentalism. I suspect this is why many religions are attractive - they can also function as the last bastions of certainty and comfort in an uncertain world. Sounds like you gave scientism a try and found it wanting.
And as such you must always follow all thread out there and see where they lead you. And thus you must give voice to what you found.
For me the horizon of God is intriguing so I have studied the Quran, books from Dala Lama, the Bible, listen to sages in judaism and I simply do not rule them out as ways to find the core of the Ultimate Good - and science is our way of handling and understanding what surrounds us.
I came into this earth hungry to understand - and that gives me more questions even if I also have a stand where I part.
But know?
hmmmmm --- this Journey is one that gives more questions than answers and I always doubt persons that think they have them all - including my old good self...
But...
Yes, that is along the lines of what I was thinking. Darwin could have simply changed his god to be ambivalent about suffering.
Or are you saying that Darwin actually knew God directly and better than those that do believe in God (learned jews and Jesus) who said: no one knows God?
Quoting baker
This is irrelevant to the point I made, is it not? You are saying that because someone lives in the worst conditions, they will find it hard to feel meaning in anything. This is true and not something I argued against. What I said was that it is possible to accept life, nature, the universe, as it is, no more or less, and any meaning in life or to existence, can be built upon that, rather than delusions that come out of a life crisis.
So, you say that poverty and living in the gutter will make people turn to things like religion easily. This I agree with, but I'm not talking about the psychology of religious people or how people turn to it, but that it is possible to accept the pointless existence of life and the universe and still feel meaning without adding religious delusions. And people who fight against these kinds of very human tendencies (to invent unsupported explanations for things they can't explain), I find have much more strength than others to cope with life's challenges, as religious thoughts often spiral things into the nonsense that rarely pushes people out of misery. It takes a lot of willpower to not fall into delusions as a way to flee from the harsh reality of the universe and of course, that is harder the worse someone's life situation is, that is not the point.
Quoting Iris0
Because self-reflection and the way human psychology works make us prone to depression in entirely more complex ways than them. That things are without a goal isn't something we imagine, it's what is the most logical observation of our existence, it's a hypothesis that is the most likely because there's no evidence for there being any further meaning. Any kind of applied meaningfulness that isn't an invented meaning by us (like, the pleasure of eating ice cream during a warm day) and rather a meaning that we invent as being cosmic and outside of ourselves, is the imagination, the delusion.
We didn't stay apes because evolution developed a highly adaptable intelligence for us in order for us to survive better and hunt in packs. We developed our advanced intelligence just like a predator develops extremely sharp and clear vision in order to hunt. Our intelligence is just a fluke of evolution, nothing more. What comes after that, i.e that our intelligence starts to invent concepts of reality that can have profound effects on us, good or bad, is just the side effect of this evolutionary trait. Just like the advanced night sight of the owl doesn't work well during the day, so does our intelligence fail to work well when we are pressured into explaining something unexplainable at the time. Like when our ancestors fleed a predator and they tried to explain between them why the animal did the things they did. They could then predict what that animal would do the next time they were being hunted and easily evade it. But when a lightning strike hit and killed one in the tribe, they couldn't explain why, but their intelligence forced them to do so because that's the point of that evolutionary trait, they started forming explanations that were far away from the truth of how lightning and thunder works, because it was too complex of an event to be explained at that time and with the resources they had.
So does intelligence work today as well. People tend to be extremely biased and explain with a lot of fallacies. We have over the course of thousands of years developed methods to bypass our thought process shortcomings, this is essentially what philosophy has been doing, bypassing our tendency for jumping to conclusions. And we've felt it in the world, we can see it all around. The very existence of the technology we have is a result of us being able to figure things out instead of jumping to conclusions. Using tools of thought to help explain something past our biases and fallacies. The very fact that we write on computers right now is because of this, not because we are intelligent and could figure it out. Without any tools of thought, developed through philosophy and science, we would never have come this far as a species.
So then, why should we live life through delusions that have their roots in primal thinking, biases, and fallacies? And not find meaning through ways of bypassing delusions and our intelligence shortcomings? This is what I'm talking about, that delusions are for people who give up on finding meaning in things as they are and instead need to apply fantasy to the universe in order to feel happy. Religion and belief is a drug to block the truth of reality. It takes effort and willpower to see things purely as they are, and even more to find meaning in the pointlessness of everything. But the opposite is just opium for the mind and soul, it can comfort, but is essentially a lie.
No evidence found?
Am not so sure about this because what I found after having read and tried to understand the issue is that the development in the ex christian countries are all towards personal freedom and democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and thoughts and opinion (in public) and the Christian thoughts were from the beginning: Freedom. That is smack in the center of this particular religion.
You can check that out and you will find it.
This in turn - when humans from all cultures and countries (in the beginning most women and slaves) saw their opportunity they took it and this movement grew as a grassroots movement until it took over governments and rulers. And so the laws changed. And the minds of people changed.
You will find the evidence of this when you make an honest comparison with the worlds where Islam has been and is still operative - government, personal freedom etc. Or countries where hinduism or buddismen have been operative.
The effects of the beliefs human have had have in fact formed the societies they have been active in.
Why?
Well what you think is how you will act and what you do is what later will become the result of what you where taught to believe and hold true.
Right?
Quoting Christoffer
Does still not make us understand why we have this sort of self-reflection --- what is if for? Giving us depressions? Seems very un-useful to me.
Why have we developed this faculty and this feature?
You'll be rewarded in Heaven for pointing that out! Hopefully, quite soon!
Good point there then...
In order to reflect upon decisions. Nothing of this is really a mystery, just study some psychology and evolution and you will have the answers there. If we don't have self-reflection, we wouldn't be able to examine the choices we've made and adjust for the future. But depressions is even more basic, even animals show characteristics of depression.
And not all aspects of either evolutionary animal features or characteristics of our intelligence are useful. You can't take an example of something that doesn't make sense for us to have and conclude that in any pro or against evolution or religious beliefs. Evolution is slow, most of humanity right now still possesses characteristics of psychology that are basically still the things we had on the savanna. A lot of stress and mental disorders today have their roots in our modern lives not being very well suited for hunter/gatherer psychology.
I suggest you study psychology, evolution, history, etc. if you want longer and more thorough answers to these questions.
Quoting Iris0
???
I do not understand your line of argument - as there is no line... of argument. If belief does not form how people act - so what do they act on? And if actions do not form and build physical reality - what does?
If you think that it is okey with murder - and you act on it then there will be a dead person in the physical reality and the police in the same physical reality will link you to this murder and will punish you. Don't you think?
BUT I actually asked you why.
Why do we have these un useful and completely meaningless brains that work for nothing the way they do - no other animals have them.
Do not say I should read phycology and stuff - because they ONLY study what is already present and there - not why it came to be...
I didn't quite follow your question. Darwin lost his faith in the God he believed in, that he was brought up the believe in.
I already explained it in detail, if you want more detail you have to study psychology, I won't write out thousands of pages of psychology research when I've already summed it up.
And psychology doesn't just study what is going on now, it's actually the exact thing you are after. The only way to understand how we function today is to study how our intelligence evolved.
You can't just demand answers and when you get them you just repeat the questions again just because you don't understand the answers. I've summed it up and if you want to dive deeper into the science of evolution and psychology you really have to sit down and read about it.
If you don't do the work and just question the answers you get like that, then it's hopeless to try and explain further. It's all there in psychology research, buy some books!
:smile:
And the humans who say that they have a real experience of God - who are they talking about? Fiction or reality?