Atheism is far older than Christianity
Atheism older than Christianity or Islam, but Romans erased it from history, new study finds.
While looking at much older religions than Christianity, like Zoroastrianism. I recalled that atheism is far older than Christianity as described above.
Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong?
While looking at much older religions than Christianity, like Zoroastrianism. I recalled that atheism is far older than Christianity as described above.
Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong?
Comments (199)
I feel like 'atheism' is the wrong word to use considering our inclinations to believe in supernatural (beyond the norm and unlike the norm) phenomena is and has been an intrinsic part of our thoughts and emotions because part of seeking to learn what we don't know is expecting to find that which we don't know. Perhaps 'supernaturalism' is a better fit.
"Pagan" is another word.
I think it's close but not quite because paganism also involves a kind of deism.
It seems more like polytheism. What am I missing?
I'm just saying that even before belief in gods, there was belief in supernatural phenomena e.g. spirits, angels, demons, elementals, etc. Aren't such beliefs also contrary to atheism?
Sounds a bit superstitious to me, but to each his own.
In my view, atheism is mainly the rejection of superstition. There have always been atheists, but apparently (according to superstition) rejecting superstition is very bad luck and demands retribution.
Superstitions which go out of their way to target detractors just so happened to have been successful...
Yeah, that's my point; that superstition superseded atheism, and that the presence of superstition contradicts atheism in some way.
Quoting hachit
My point is, even before theism (or organised religions) there was a kind of universal (maybe even objective) acceptance of superstition. Also, the modern day version of atheism is different from the ancient version primarily because of that point. That is, ancient atheism had an acceptance of superstition and its related paradigms, including what were the origins of spiritualism and religions, and that makes it different from what we now understand as atheism.
It seems like the monotheists in the ancient world were mostly offended by people believing in other gods (Baal, for instance) rather than being offended by people who believed in no gods.
I haven't read it, but Catherine Nixey wrote The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World. The Christians and 2000 years haven't left much for us. Is there evidence cropping up about atheism in the ancient world?
For one, it's not as if everyone had the same beliefs but decided to change.
Two, you can't assume that there are never political or control motivations for belief endorsement.
The article explains that atheism was basically "written out of history" as best as the Romans were able to do so.
It appears to be from a 2015 book by Tim Whitmarsh, who is a professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. The book is called Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World.
Once you can achieve a sentient state where you can question, "who made the world" you can rightly, though not necessarily, conclude, "a being did this". Who this being was and is today is no more than a built construct of the supposed being.
You can have so many different forms of theism, so that there is a god for nearly the source of everything in the world.
Dawkins put it right in his idea/meme, "god of the gaps." When you do not have an explanation for something, you may excuse it to be caused by a higher being. Schopenhauer said, doing this is, "Explaining an unknown with an even more unknown." There's really no sense in it. To just simply admit, "I don't know" was not enough for the myth makers in our civilization.
Nothing "went wrong". We have had religion for a very long time. Atheism cannot have developed until there were Gods being worshipped, so that atheists could not-believe in them. The article is full of assertions, presented entirely without evidence: I assume the book contains some evidence or justification? :chin: For now, this is nothing more than the usual emotional and irrational attack that atheists make on religion.
I can't quite see how we could have developed atheism before theism. How could we not-believe in God(s), when we had yet to recognise Gods in the first place? And I think you'll find that the majority of animals do not have religious or atheistic feelings. Unless you have some sort of justification to offer for this odd pair of assertions? :chin:
Quoting Josh AlfredNor for you, it seems! :smile: :smile: :smile:
I have for some time thought that Athiesm is not just the denial of god, like the denial of the property red, but rather the absence of thinking of the color red, not thinking of a god. Maybe there is another term for this, with a definition more fitting than Atheism.
I'm sorry, but your conclusion looks to me like you're clutching at straws. If we were going to develop a new way of thinking next week - let's call this new way "gurt" - would we currently be "agurtic"? No, we wouldn't, we'd just be being silly, trying so hard to find new evidence to show how marvellous and true our own current beliefs actually are. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :yikes:
However, I found the following video on YouTube of the author discussing his book: Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World
The author is clearly a lot more careful in his conclusions than the posted article would have one assume. The author refers to the ancient Greeks and to schools of thought like Epicureanism, pointing out ideas which he terms 'atheistic'. The author's definition of atheism seems to have more to do with the denial of a anthropomorphic, omnipresent, omnibenevolent (etc.) God, and not denial of everything 'Divine'. I'd say such use of the word 'atheist' is rather liberal, and hardly correlates to the disposition of the average modern atheist. Considering his reason for writing the book seems to be to provide atheism with a degree of historical authority, it is rather misleading. Calling these ancient Greek philosophers atheistic carries about as much meaning as calling Buddhists atheistic. In both cases they have absolutely nothing in common with the average 'modern atheist' (insofar as there is such a thing).
0. Never even considered it
1. Affirm the claim (theism)
2. Deny the claim (atheism)
3. Reserve judgement (agnostic)
I think the author is referrring to the 0 state of all knowledge, specifically about God. It doesn't equate with atheism because the former is totally unaware of God and arguments for/against while the latter is closely acquainted with such.
0 is one common definition of atheism, though. It's variously called implicit, negative, weak or soft atheism.
Tim Whitmarsh, Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.
Here is the author's presentation: Battling the gods
And a (favorable) review from a classicist: Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2016.06.20
Somehow I feel I have been deprived of the epiphany I expected, reading the title.
Yeah, the title is odd: it's supposed to sound provocative, but how is what it ostensibly asserts even controversial?
The author's thesis is stronger than that: he argues that atheism was a "thing" in the ancient world, not just a few individual exemplars.
And I am quite interested to read the examples that the author supplies, from a historical perspective. It just does not appear, to me, as a claim that requires extensive argumentation (but perhaps I am biased, because I live in a predominantly atheist country). It certainly does not warrant the kind of enthusiasm that the journalist purports.
1. Are you aware and do you understand the concept of theism ?
1a - no = unaware, ignorant of issue, uninterested, outside having a position
1b. yes
2. Do you agree with the concept?
2a - yes = theist
2b - no = atheist
2c - neither agree or disagree = agnostic
So, it sounds more like "anything goes" than "atheism" per se. From what I've read of the Greek gods, they were quite mockable, even if one believed in them. At least in some narratives there was nothing austere and distant about them.
But we don't have a lot of documents from the ancient world and most of what one can say about the ancient world is going to rest on slender supports. Further, this book is about Greece -- not the Egyptians, not the Babylonians, not the Etruscans, et al.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I agree. It's like finding disbelievers in quantum mechanics back in the 17th century. If it didn't exist yet, how could there be disbelief?
Anyway, we can't talk about belief or disbelief without some sort of evidence. Prior to writing there is only "object evidence" and we don't know what those objects, like the "Willendorf Venus", meant to their creators. Maybe it was magic, maybe it was religion, maybe it was art, maybe it was... who the hell knows? Archeologists famously assume a religious function for anything that isn't otherwise clear.
:up:
[The rest of your post is good stuff too. :wink: ]
It wasn't until much, much later - about 5,000 years ago - that polytheistic religions emerged.
Quoting VoidDetector
We naturally want answers. Religion provided answers. We later found out that science provides better answers.
The Scientific Revolution was about 500 years ago. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Long live science. :party:
"The absence of thought" isn't exactly ignorance, but I think it could be termed unknowing. All unknowing has an unknown. Quantum mechanics was not ignored, but rather unknown to 17th century physicists. They could deny it because they had no knowledge of it. They had an unknowing. From this conclusion, I still arrive at the same argument, just in similar terms, "unknowing is atheism." I am sure you have heard the argument that we are "born atheist". This runs perpendicular to my conclusion, supporting it again.
Where we come apart I believe is I believe that atheism is an active objection to a proposed belief. One can not be a - anything, without there being an anything.
A classics professor said "Magic is religion one doesn't believe in; religion is magic one does believe."
I do not know (no evidence either way) that ancient people (I'd put the marker for "ancient" at a minimum of 10,000 years ago) did or did not believe in gods. If they did not believe in gods, "atheism" doesn't seem like the appropriate term because "the gods -- present or absent" would be pre-cognitive.
"magic" seems like preliminary to religious ideas. My guess is that magic came before religion and was a belief in the remarkable characteristics of things and substances, rather than a belief in a god. How ancient people perceived electric storms, earthquakes, the tides, phases of the moon, sunrise and sunset, seasons, sickness, death... I don't know, and nobody else does either, because they were way-pre-literate. One could look at the records collected about extant hunter-gatherer people for some clues (but only clues, not extensive proof).
It would be pretty interesting if they did, given that, according to that book that I referred to, polytheistic religions didn't emerge for at least another 5,000 years.
If you went on the evidence alone then it would be hard to justify beliefs beyond claims about immediate perception. So where did all these fantastic tales found in religion and tradition come from?
I don't understand why people would ignore that humans have always done this, as far as we know. It's all very well to say "why do we do this?", and perhaps this is a worthwhile question, but the starting point is: we humans have always done this. :chin:
There is the oft told tale that the ancients believed in gods and in time God, until the Enlightenment thinkers came along and challenged this belief, pitting reason and science against religion.
Toward the end of the article he says:
I am sure that most of us here are familiar with just such dichotomous thinking, and, indeed, some are guilty of it.
The article ends:
The way that negative/weak/implicit/soft atheism works is via atheism being defined as a lack of belief in deities. If you've never thought about it, then you lack a belief in any deities. And if you've actively rejected the notion, you also lack a belief in any deities.
Can you give me a label for any other non belief of something one is un-aware of ?
But no real philosophy here - one can identify themselves as they wish - my only caveat would be if you do identify yourself as such it seems that is no basis to argue against theism from. They should maintain spectator status in the discussion.
Yeah, I'm not endorsing the distinction, but it's common and I think it makes some sense. I'd also prefer to use the term for positive/active denials.
If that were the case, then religion would no longer exist, yet it persists. Science provides all sorts of information about how the world works but provides us little guidance on how we ought to live in the world. Even if all religious thought is factually incorrect, it might still have utility.
No, not necessarily. If everyone realised that the answers that science provides are better, then that possible consequence would make sense. But sadly countless people do not realise this.
Quoting Hanover
It isn't supposed to, is it? I was making a like for like comparison. That's like saying that a hand saw isn't very good at drilling holes into wood.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, but when I was talking about answers, that's not what I meant. It might have "utility" for some people to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, but we don't consider 3 to be the right answer.
Answers to what is the question though. Religion doesn't provide better answers to the question of what the earth was like a million years ago, but it does provide better answers to the question of how one should live one's life.Quoting S
But you did say:
Quoting S
So it would seem you weren't offering any role for religion and were celebrating its death.Quoting S
We must now define "right," which is a terribly nebulous concept, asking what is truth and what is not. I think of utility as the better way to assess that. For example, is the smell of decaying flesh really foul, or do we just perceive it that way out of utility to save us from eating rotten poisonous food?
I agree that science has much more utility in explaining how the physical world works than does religion, and I find those who rely on the Bible or other ancient texts to explain our physical origins to be pretty ridiculous. It's be equally ridiculous to use science to try to figure out how to live a virtuous life, and we'd all agree there is no reasonable empirical study you'd conduct to determine that. Since the question of virtue is one of significance, and science offers us no solutions in that regard, there then is a logical basis for keeping God on life support.
“There have been countless religions most of which are now extinct. Imagine a village in earlier times with no religion. How could a religion start? A particular idea, like “there is a spirit of crops” thought up in the mind of one person would have a good chance of success. This idea might be built upon with “a prayer is needed to appease this spirit and ensure that our crops are successful”. As this prayer would only take a little time to perform, the village might pray rather than risk losing their crops. In this case the prayer idea has addressed the genetic fear of hunger. The person who thinks up this idea might gain status in the eyes of the other villagers and so there is a reason to spreading it. New ideas do not have to be true, they only have to be believed. The ritual for the protection of the crops must only be seen, from the villagers’ eye-views, to protect the crops. If the crops are generally successful, then praying will “save” the crops in the majority of cases. On the occasion that it does not, there is always the opportunity to say that the prayers were not sufficient or correctly done. Sometime later another person may say that a place for the spirit is needed and so a house is set aside for worship. People may begin to meet there. Maybe the crop spirit is thought to reside in the house, and so on. As the religion evolves, morals and rules of behaviour are included. The new religion now provides a frame of reference through which the world can be viewed. Over time, a priest class will evolve to ensure the correct following of the religious ideas. By a process of addition and modification, the religion will evolve and mature.” (evolution-path.org 2014).
The most important point here is “New ideas do not have to be true, they only have to be believed”. From what I have seen of human nature, people will believe almost anything and so we have today a set of religions full of stories and events many of which can not possible be true. This is a problem. The problem is compounded as humans are creatures of habit (a main theme in the stories of Somerset Maugham) and so they are reluctant to let go of these fantasies. For example, the idea that you don’t die when you really do die (heaven) is a comfortable one so why would a person give it up? But the retention of these fanciful ideas in religions retard the progress of science. What can be done about it?
I think it shouldn't be considered as atheism because, to be fair, the 0 state isn't a claim while atheism is one - that God doesn't exist.
Everyone's heard of the words ''heresy'' and ''conversion''.
Conversion: to adopt a religious belief
Heresy: To reject religious doctrine
Whn Europeans colonized the world they ''converted'' people to Christianity but didn't punish them for ''heresy''. This implies that in the eyes of religion there's a difference between atheism and not being aware of the concept at all. It's this difference that the faithful see but atheists, for vested interests, want to brush under the carpet.
Right on. How the World actually is doesn't give an answer how it should be. Or how you should live your life and what is good and what is bad.
Are you implying religious people can't accept science? Smells like an ad hominem.
There's no contradiction between science and the parts of religion that matter.
Quoting S
Which is why hand saws don't replace drills or vice versa, and why religion and science don't replace each other. Science doesn't provide better answers, just different ones.
Again I'm not endorsing it, but the reason that people stress that definition is that they're stressing that atheism isn't a claim, it's simply a lack of belief--however the lack of belief is arrived at (which can be through a claim, but it doesn't necessarily have to be).
I think that stems from people looking at the etymology of the term "literally." They're reading it as literally "the negation or absence of theism."
The only reason NOT to define it that way is to try and shift the burden of proof. If you do not endorse that meaning, what meaning DO you endorse?
I just think atheists are trying to gain the upperhand by unfair means.
Why?
Saying atheism is a lack of belief relieves them of the burden of proof. I think it doesn't work if you scrutinize this claim.
Theism clearly differentiates between the two positions. It attempts to convert one group (the unaware) into their fold and charges and punishes the other (atheists) for heresy/apostasy.
Atheists claim to be ''rational'' but if they pull the god-unaware into their ranks by simply equating lack of belief with denial of the God's existence then they too are guilty of subverting rationality.
Anyway, thanks.
You seem to have answered your own question.
Quoting Hanover
From what you've said, it doesn't have a unique role. And we have already past the turning point in history which marked a wave of independent thinking. The blinkers have been cast aside for many people. That's what I meant.
Quoting Hanover
No, there isn't, because that's what ethics is for. What is it with this apparent assumption that religion, or God, is required to figure out how one ought to live one's life? If we never had any conception of religion, or of God, we would still be asking these kind of questions and coming up with answers.
Why would there be a burden of proof issue with atheists anyway?
(I'm an atheist by the way, but obviously a "positive"/"strong"/etc. atheist)
No claim (the god naive) - no need for proof
Claim (theism/atheism) - need proof
That's what I think. I could be wrong
How strictly are you using "proof"? Because no empirical claim is provable if we're using that term fairly strictly. If you just means "reasons for belief," presumably most people will have that.
Atheism is not a belief, it is precisely the lack of a belief. Calling it a belief is just a cute argument theists like to make, an attempt to dodge the burden of thier own claims but it has no substance. An atheist MIGHT make the claim there is no god, an individual might make a case that way, but thats thier own claim, perhaps an anti theist claim, but it is not atheism.
The word atheism is only necessary in the first place becuase of the early aggression of the theist claims when they had much more power and pervasiveness. We do not have a similar term for any other lack of belief, its just in the case of the god question. The term came from the turmoil of theistic debate and its struggle to maintain its theistic claims in the face of a rapidly crumbling basis. As knowledge grew and theism was forced to concede more and more ground to science and reason and education it grew more desperate, redefining and reinterpreting as best it could to maintain its claims. Pretending atheism is a belief, or a belief system is just one of the latest such attempts. Its a false equivalence, so that a theist can say “you operate on faith too”. Nonsense.
I'm an agnostic. I can't believe something I have no evidence for.
If I don't understand something then I do not make a claim about what is behind that thing. I wouldn't rule out God being behind an event so I am agnostic. But I have no evidence that gods or something mythological is beyond an event so I can't believe that. I can only speculate.
I suspect that fear and hierarchies/power structures and indoctrination are behind peoples religious/superstitious beliefs. I grew up in a strict Christian environment where you were not allowed to ask questions or express doubts.
I would not say atheism is the default because people might spontaneously form their own theories about reality.
What an odd question.
It sort of has a few odd generalizations.
I'm fairly certain that there were folks who rejected forms of theism that occurred prior to the advent of Christianity, so there were more than likely atheists prior to the advent of Christianity.
Why didn't humans stop at atheism (I'm assuming you mean why didn't [all] humans stop at being atheists)?
To my understanding there was never a recorded time where all humans were atheists, so this might indicate why they have never stopped at being atheists, as there was never a concensus upon which humans could stop. I would never assume that there was a possible point upon which humans could stop as I would not agree that there ever was a general consensus of denying/rejecting of theistic gods.
.
Also, as time passed more and more theistic gods were claimed to exist by various people. With the advent of each theistic god the rejection of them as existing would not predicate the advent of the god, but would be a subsequent denial/rejection. It's a bit difficult to reject the existence of something prior to it being claimed to exist.
As to the "what went wrong" aspect...
Well, I suppose what went wrong is that there were simply new encarnations of theistic gods occuring. (now if that's a what went wrong is a matter of generealized perspective)
OK... as to why there has been new thestic god incarnations claimed to exist over time is a somewhat complex issue, but I feel it's a safe bet to say with each theistic god claimed to exist there has been someone out there rejecting the claim. Being an atheist requires a case by case analysis of each theistic god presented, so until the case is presented it's difficult to reject or accept it.
Meow!
G
We could dial it down to justification if proof is inappropriate.
You forgot they came to that belief after a thoughtful and informed deliberation.
Your comment is dismissive and ignorant. The equivalent of me saying most atheist beliefs are based on nothing deeper that jumping on the Dawkins bandwagon. The analysis being " there are all these "smart" people who are atheists, i'm a smart person - I'll be an atheist too " but I would never say that.
What is it then?
Ignorance?
A lack of belief has another term more apt to it viz. Ignorance. A child who is god-naive is ignorant, not an atheist. An atheist, I'm sure, will never consider himself/herself an ignorant for s/he claims to be rational which by its very nature implies every position held be justified. So, unless tye atheist admits himself as ignorant s/he better justify his position on God.
Just so you know I'm not an agnostic.
That is not implied by what I said. You would be reading that into my comment.
Quoting BlueBanana
That depends on what parts matter and how they're interpreted. That's a can of worms right there.
Quoting BlueBanana
No, it provides better answers to the kind of questions I had in mind when I made those comments than the answers to be found in religion. I already clarified that I was making a like for like comparison. Like a comparison between a power tool and a hand tool both designed for the same kind of job. You can definitely replace a hand tool with a power tool which does a better job of it, but some people decide to use a hand tool nevertheless. Just because there's a better alternative available, that doesn't necessarily mean that the inferior tool will disappear or fall out of use completely. It's inappropriate to look for answers to normative ethics in science, but it's not inappropriate to look for answers about the world in religion, in spite of the normative ethical aspect to religion, so it doesn't work both ways. Religion tries to be a multi-function tool. Science knows its limits.
Right on? That's a red herring, mate.
I have no problem with the idea that atheists reached their position based on weak arguments etc.
I know from my own experience that I was immensely forced into religion and had no choice. I think you will find statistically that most religious people are the same religion as their parents. Explain that.
They just happen to believe the same thing their parents and society believe.
Quoting Rank Amateur
That is about the most unlikely scenario of all.
If the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is anything other than “yes”, then you are an atheist.
So one could be an atheist becuase one is ignorant of god, or a variety of reasons.
Likewise, atheism or atheists have no special claim of rationality or science...those are additional or seperate things about a persons view.
Like a theist, there are different kinds of atheists but that doesnt change the basic definitions of Theism=belief in god and Atheism=lack of belief in god.
The confusion comes from uninformed, anti theists (opposed to religion) who confuse their antitheism for atheism and then go around attacking theists and people listen to them self identify as atheists and walk away with the impression that atheists are assholes. Some are (probly many, as they are humans and humans are kinda assholes in general) but its not because they are atheists.
Yeah. Could it be that he's getting all defensive because he takes that as a slight, or maybe he's making the mistake of assuming that "they" are just like him? I think the theists on the forum are more of an exception to the rule.
It [i]is[/I] so for thinkers in comparison to [i]my kind[/I] of atheism. It's the difference between stopping at the edge of a chasm and taking that extra step which causes you to fall in. Theists take that extra step.
start of myth of sisyphus
"HERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.
These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect.
If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the
actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument. Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did
That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die
because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or
illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason
for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. How to answer it? "
The only sensible way to answer a loaded question is to identify it as such and await a response from the questioner.
Camus question was not loaded, it was fundamental, and he had an answer that worked for him. I disagree with his answer, but it was thoughtful and honest. I like to think he would say the same about mine.
Oh the irony. You don't like my answer, so you respond with an ad hominem.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I highlighted the wording which makes it a loaded question. Before we can talk about how to answer any question about "the" meaning of life, we need to ask whether there is one. That's "a" meaning, not "the" meaning. The latter controversially assumes the former.
It's a bit like talk about the present King of France. How would you deal with the question of the present King of France? Wouldn't you object that we need to first ask whether there is a present King of France?
After all that, that's what you respond with? So be it. I kind of feel like you've wasted my time. I was under the impression that you were trying to confront me with some sort of challenge to what I'd said that you were interested in pursuing. But then you cut it short.
If your position requires an additional step which is erroneous or outside the bounds of reason, then I don't think that it's right to say that your position is of equal or greater sophistication or thoughtfulness than mine. This isn't intended as a slight, it's just how I think it is.
They say philosophy is like a 2500 year old conversation. So you walk into the laundromat and there are two guys standing by a dryer arguing about THE meaning of life. One of them quotes Camus, the other doesn't. Or is it A meaning or THE meaning of life?
I used to think that quote sounded good... really deep. Not so much now. The people who are most likely to be thinking about whether life is worth living or not are adolescents, and they should be discouraged from coming to negative conclusions. Why? Because, for adolescents and other immature people the benchmark value of life is too volatile to trust. It can swing between "life sucks" to "life is sweet" in 15 minutes. Pity to jump out of the window just because the going price on the worth of living dropped 50 points.
You are here. Get used to it. There are a number of questions that rank as important, and generally the answers don't involve blowing one's brains out or not. Like “What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope?” Kant posed a more useful question than Camus. For that matter, "What shall I have for lunch?" beats Camus' question.
Life has a whole bunch of meanings, depending on the year, the proper functioning of one's various body parts, the price of tea in China, and numerous other factors. So you think your life has reached junk bond status. Well, you can make money on junk bonds if you chose carefully. Meaning, of course, you can make a life worth living.
I do not think one can be an honest or authentic atheist if one can not answer the question of if not "God" what is the meaning and purpose of my life. That is what Camus was asking. And that is all I was asking S, what is his meaning and purpose for living, not THE meaning. If one is a thoughtful person, one should have an individual answer for that question, at least IMO.
I was looking for an honest answer to a serious question, and got a dodge. I have no interest in a debate, I did have interest in what S found gave his life meaning. There is no right answer. Camus would have called my theism a form of philosophical suicide. An easy out to avoid a difficult question. He maybe right, but it works for me.
I too would dodge the direct question because I can not give you a full explication of my life's meaning. My life has meanings, I am quite sure, but I have not parsed all of them out. I find some meaning in serving others for a while, as long as they are not too demanding. I find some meaning in loving others in the several ways there are to love. I find meaning in discovering (or reading others' discoveries) in history, sociology, psychology, etc. I find meaning in food, clothing, warmth, exercise, sunshine... and various bodily functions (we are after all, embodied beings, and it is our bodies that have all the fun and do most of the suffering). Everyone has some historical meaning -- I don't really know what mine is, yet. I myself will probably never know.
An individual's total sum of meaning is difficult to name, composite, dynamic, unfinished, and relative to other people. So, I can't just dash off a few lines describing my meaning. Even if I say, "serving others for a while..." I haven't spelled out meaning, I just indicated a place where some meaning develops. Loving and being the object of love gives us meaning. But "I love him" isn't exactly the meaning, is it? I love him, he loves me is a relationship. The meaning can be approximated by "I am loved" but I am not sure "I am loved" is the meaning. The meaning that "I am loved" gives is, in some ways, unsayable. Not unmentionable, just not named.
So... people dodge the question.
I don't find this reasonable at all.
Theists differentiate between the ignorant and the heretic.
I'm reading Christopher Hitchens' book "God is Not Great" and in it he mentions that those who died before Jesus Christ (the ignorant) go to limbo and not hell. However, those who deny the words of Jesus (atheists) go to hell.
Atheists, I've seen, usually claim their position is a lack of belief and then use this to avoid justifying their position. Ignorance is a state that needs no justification but may be an explanation. Atheism needs justification just as theism does.
Hitchens was an anti-theist, and an atheist. Im actually not sure how that is relevent.
Ok, so what is unreasonable exactly? It doesnt matter that theists differentiate between the heretic and the ignorant...they do not get to impose their standards on anyone but themselves. We are talking about atheism and what it means.
You said you do not find “this reasonable at all” in reference to my post. What exactly do you think is unreasonable and why?
There's a difference, in the eyes of theists, between ignorance and atheism. This is not an idiosyncratic observation as it's just an instance of the difference between ignorance and knowledge which, I hope, we all can agree on.
Atheism is the claim: God doesn't exist. It's, to atheists, a justified claim and hence it is knowledge and knowledge is, most definitely, not ignorance.
Every philosophical question has a musical answer.
The dodger from the American Song Book, Aaron Copland
Oh, the candidate's a dodger, yes, a well-known dodger,
Oh, the candidate's a dodger, yes, and I'm a dodger too.
He'll meet you and treat you and ask you for your vote,
But look out, boys, he's a-dodgin' for your note.
We're all a-dodgin',
Dodgin', dodgin', dodgin',
Oh, we're all a-dodgin' out the way through the world.
Oh, the preacher, he's a dodger, yes, a well-known dodger,
Oh, the preacher, he's a dodger, yes, and I'm a dodger, too.
He'll preach the gospel and tell you of your
crimes, But look out, boys, he's dodgin' for your dimes.
Oh, the lover is a dodger, yes, a well-known dodger,
Oh, the lover is a dodger, yes, and I'm a dodger, too.
He'll hug you and kiss you and call you his
bride, But look out, girls, he's telling you a lie.
If you had've clarified sooner, you would've gotten a different answer from me. Instead, you keep pushing these insidious suggestions about dishonesty.
I do have an answer, but I don't really understand why you're asking me that question. It's not as though it's a dilemma. At least, not for me, and not for many, many other people. There are innumerable potential answers to that question. I'm spoilt for choice.
Like most people, I get meaning out of my life from the things I enjoy, the stuff I value, and the people I have feelings for. And my cat. I have no purpose other than maybe doing what I want or think is right.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Bullshit. You were the one being evasive. I gave you my honest analysis of what I understood to be the question. You did not helpfully engage with my analysis. You took one brief look at it and then fell back on your negative assumptions and took off.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I agree with him.
Why would Camus called your theism a form of philosophical suicide? Explain further, if you would.
If the ignorant refers only to those who have an unconscious lack of belief, then we aren't necessarily in disagreement. I get the argument for excluding them.
Quoting TheMadFool
I justify my lack of belief through the absence of sufficient evidence for theism. I have seen other atheists do this on many occasions. Haven't you?
There's a difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns which is of relevance here.
That claim you refer to above is rightly categorised under atheism, but it is a bad definition. I don't want to get dragged too far into an argument over that. I'll just say that, to me, it seems futile and rather foolish to try to dictate language against common usage rather than adapt accordingly.
An obvious attempt at obfuscation. This is no different than the argument as it has already been put except some shifting semantics.
Here is the problem with using your standard: I could make something up, and make it up as I go in appropriately vague answers and you would be burdened to prove it does not exist. Worse, you will have burdened yourself with an endless amount of such proofs and your only other option is to refusal to address them. If you do, then this made up thing is equally justified as whatever anyone believes.
But wait, it gets worse yet. With your standards in place, no person can ever be justified in belief in one god until they have disproven every other god. After all, the burden of proof lies with all involved parties, each has a responsibility to the others claims, right? Right.
Now, you are certainly welcome to look at the burden of proof in this way but A) I would be very surprised if you thought of other claims this way and B) you shouldnt be at all surprised when someone tells you that you can keep you standard, for the workload alone.
No, atheism on its own is someone who hasnt been convinced, who simply lacks belief. Something else must be added, anti-theism, a closed mind, a grudge against religion or personal agenda etc etc, before it graduates to actually making a claim.
Quoting TheMadFool
Still Irrelevant.
Camus believed those who chose to not directly face and accept this absurdity where making a leap of faith, abandoning reason and truth, and committing a type of philosophical suicide. These included a type of superficial hedonism, existentialism, and theism.
His answer was the absurd hero, who did not avoid the dilemma, but understood it, challenged it, and in the end accepted it.
Isn't this the ad ignorantiam fallacy? You can't conclude the negative just because the affirmative hasn't been proven. Suspension of judgment seems the right thing to do.
I agree that there are limits to ''suspending judgment''. What you can't see, touch, smell, or hear probably doesn't exist. Microbes exist although you can't see them. Perhaps God just needs the right microscope or telescope or some kind of instrument. I don't know. It sounds ridiculous to hear oneself say this but Copernicus was ridiculed and so was Darwin.
I disagree with this. If one is unconvinced tye right thing to do is neither affirm nor deny anything. Atheism, logically, shouldn't follow an unconvincing theistic argument.
I guess I'm saying the logical thing to do is be an agnostic.
I think it's called the argument from ignorance fallacy.
1. Theists can't prove that God exists.
So,
2. God doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is to withold your judgment. Am I right?
No, it's not an example of that fallacy. It's not fallacious, whatever the topic, to justify an absence of belief because of an absence of sufficient evidence in support of it. I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist or even that I believe that God doesn't exist, which would be the kind of claims which would be susceptible to the fallacy.
And suspension of judgement [i]requires[/I] an absence of belief, surely based on an absence of sufficient evidence, or some variation of that wording. What else could it reasonably be based on? So, it seems you can't argue against me in that regard without arguing against yourself.
You seem to be stuck in your own little world and do not seem to be accounting for what myself and DingoJones have been saying. You have beef with positive atheism, and you should take it up with positive atheists, and you should just bloody call it that for sake of clarity.
Mr S has pretty clearly addressed your post so I wont bother repeating. At this point I think its all been laid out for and as S has said, you might be stuck somehow if you cannot see it because you really are not accounting for what's been said.
I think that is absolutely fine, except someone with that position should refrain from the discussion between atheist and theist. If the only thing one could add was I don't know enough to have a position - than one should logically remain on the sidelines. If one wants to challenge the theist position as false, one should have a basis for that challenge. If the only challenge is - Mr. Theist sir, you have not proved you point to my satisfaction, than argument stops there.
Why on earth should I refrain from those discussions? That makes no sense. I'm challenging the claims of theism as unjustified. I'm not merely saying that I don't know enough. That's a really poor representation of my position. You don't know enough either. The difference between us is that I'm not deluded. Socrates thought of that distinction as a mark of wisdom:
[quote=The Apology]Socrates: I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.[/quote]
And it's not merely about my satisfaction, it's about the reasonable threshold for satisfaction. It's more about being reasonable than being satisfied. You're just manipulating language to make it seem arbitrary. If, say, you're satisfied that God exists, just because you have a funny feeling about it, then you aren't setting a reasonable threshold. You're free to set whatever threshold you like, and I'm free to criticise it. You won't get any special treatment from me.
because - if as you stated before:
Quoting S
what are you adding to the discussion beyond:
Quoting S
which is exactly my point of:
Quoting Rank Amateur
what value does that add ? You are just standing on the sidelines yelling you guys are wrong, and i don't have to tell you why. Better to just stay on the sidelines, and think as you wish until you are willing to defend the position.
So here goes, I propose theism is a rational position. And I welcome any argument you can make with supportable propositions that ends in a conclusion that says " therefore theism is unreasonable"
preferably without the acrimony, but that maybe too much to ask.
The rest of your post makes no sense, and completely ignores my reply which exposes the faulty assumptions in how you're attempting portray my position. It would only make sense if it was a case of anything goes or if my standard is arbitrary, but that's not the case.
As for the above quote, the burden lies with you, so off you go. You set out your argument in a suitable place, and I'll explain why it isn't justified in accordance with a reasonable standard.
Or, I could be asking why [most] humans are yet to forget theism.
I don't think that that's such a big mystery. It's difficult to forgot what's around you. That would be a bit like trying to forgot politics or the entertainment industry. Something big would have to change first of all.
Theism has stuck around because it has a wide enough appeal and as a result of widespread indoctrination, and those circumstances haven't changed enough for it to have been forgotten.
But, on the bright side, it no longer has such a powerful grip on our thinking and our lives like it used to.
If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion.
Indeed I'm not a theist and certainly do not adhere to the ideologies resulting from the various religious notions of theism, but to forget theism or have it not within one's understanding/field of knowledge would leave a massive void in the understanding of the history of mankind.
------------------------------------
As a small sample (trivial as it may be), without knowledge of theism and the subsequent ideals within a given context, why babies (often being baby Jesus) in medieval paintings look like ugly old men would be an unknown.
If one has no knowledge of the "Homunculus" and what role it played in the theistic ideology at the time of these paints one might well assume the artists were simply terrible in having no idea what a baby was supposed to look like; thus the symbolic meaning of the paintings (we're talking 100's of 1000's of paintings) would be lost due to a lack of knowledge that can only come from an understanding of certain aspects found within theism and it's ideology.
-------------------------------------
If you mean (more so) why do people still believe in theistic deities and theistic ideologies, well that's a very complicated kettle of fish. I doubt that there's only a single answers to this question. Indeed one could begin to categorize these reasons into groupings of similar motivations (me thinks why bother, but that's just me), but as the trend in theistic belief has moved more in a direction of a personal experience and a personal god I'm not too sure such an effort would go without many folks angry. Sure most of them would be issuing strong complaints having to do with personal offense in spite of the questions and categories not being meant to personally offend. When one would start to say... these believe due to a non sequitur experience (like they saw a frozen waterfall and immediately believed in
god) or said these folks over here believe because they are in need of a psychological gap filler (someone close to them died and suddenly they needed a god to make sense of it all) well... it seems rather difficult for such a list not to offend those who believe. Indeed if you can handle that sort of mass anger, well... kudos. ;)
In short, people who believe have their reasons and as this sort of belief is a belief that centers one's being and shapes one's entire worldview making broad brush strokes with their personal beliefs is a difficult gambit.
Indeed I could discuss this futher with you, but perhaps not in a public forum. There are simply too many folks out there who have baited breath waiting to find or twist any words written that might hint of criticism regarding what they hold near and dear; thus will pick a fight or invent one if necessary for the sake of their own cause. To be fair, the same goes for too many of those who are non-theists or atheists.
So now that I've said far too much, I can now wait for either the silence (the usual) or the wonderful accusations of me being grossly unfair or not charitable to somethings someone holds near and dear; thus read about how someone is suddenly offended because I didn't bother to write my words through the filter of their personal comfort. ;)
Meow!
G
There is an obvious distincition between not believing in a deity and not being religious. As unstrustworthy as wikipedia may be, here is its definition of religion:
"Religion may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements."
If declaring oneself as an atheist means not believing in deities, metpahysics, magical thinking, superstition, or anything in that category,, then it might be that the prehistoric world didn't inhabit a single atheist.
If, however, being an atheist only means that one doesn't believe in deities, which is the standard definition, then it's fully possible to be religious and an atheist at the same time.
So instead of asking why humanity didn't stop at atheism instead of developing Christianity, it's rather a question of why not stop at earlier forms of religion. -But I can't see how Christianity was a step backwards in that sense.
How about William Lane Craig’s favourite, the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
In answer to the initial question: The profound mystery of existence, and our sense of morality and what that suggests about our place and purpose in the cosmos are excellent reasons to posit theism over atheism.
Once you have an imagination it is hard to control or contain it.
But still I think beliefs from evidence are the most secure. I am agnostic about things I don't have evidence for.
This is the kind of claim you find evidence for. I cited my own experience here. But there is a lot of historical and current day evidence.
Today millions of people live in theocracies where leaving the religion can mean a death sentence.
In the past we had the inquisition and crusades and people were burnt to the stake for heresies. In Britain in the past people could be fined if they didn't attend church regularly.
Alternative sexualities and extra marital sex were criminalized and still are in many Muslim countries and some Christian ones. So religious values became mixed with societal and cultural values making it harder to critique religion. Not many religions advocate sexual freedom and extra marital relationships. This suggests the need for control and conformity to sustain religion.
So it is hard to tell what religious or deistic beliefs people would form spontaneously.
There's [i]a lot[/I] of criticism against that argument. See here.
Quoting AJJ
Firstly, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that a mystery suggests theism. A mystery suggests a mystery. The reasonable thing to do is to accept that it's a mystery, meaning that there's currently no known answer. The unreasonable thing to do is to jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
Secondly, our sense of morality simply doesn't suggest what you think it does. Not only are there alternative explanations, there are [i]more credible[/I] alternative explanations, e.g. evolution v.s. teleology.
I imagine there are a lot of criticisms made about any philosophical argument; but if it’s reasonable to believe the premises of an argument, then it’s reasonable to believe the conclusion. The premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument are at the very least reasonable, given the metaphysical axiom that “out of nothing, nothing comes” and given the scientific evidence in favour of a beginning of the universe. So theism seems reasonable simply off the back of that argument, so long as it’s not utterly refuted.
Why, given our uncertainty, is the conclusion that this is a created, purposeful, just universe unwarranted? Believing that this is all a meaningless chaos is just as arbitrary - moreso,
I’d say - and I don’t see why simply withholding judgement should be more respectable than either.
We’re forever and unchangeably oriented toward what we perceive as the Good. We don’t do good simply out of instinct and habit; we desire and seek it for its own sake. I’m not against believing that our basic morality has an evolutionary origin, the way employ it remains indicative of a deeper moral reality.
A fair question. (so now more than likely I'll get my head chopped off by someone some where who will flip their lid over something that they find to be offensive, but anyway...)
A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faulty generalization, a biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of qualifications.
Is it unwarranted to reach a conclusion that is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence?
On a side note, if one reaches a conclusion the tendency for futher critical investigation slows, if not stops outright. Having an answer for the sake of having an answer is in no way a guarentee that the concluded answer is itself accurate.
Now continuing investigation into a notion, even if the evidence is just not there is another kettle of fish.
One other thing to consider is that a conclusion of a created, purposeful and just (that's a really tricky term) universe holds far reaching implication as to how a worldview and a world order could be structured beyond the individual's personal belief on the matter. In short, such implication can lead (look at historry... has lead) to a dictatorship of values as dictated from what might well be completely false.
Simply having a conclusion for the sake of having a conclusion holds a great number if horrific potentials; thus hasty generalizations are indeed (from my perspective) unwarranted. Uncertainty with continued investigation would not hold the same horrific potentials.
Meow!
G
The way I see it, you can believe that the universe just exists, that part of it is necessary and there’s no explanation why.
Or...
You can believe that the cosmos derives its existence from a sustaining reality beyond it, and, being beyond space and time, is necessarily immaterial, necessarily timeless, and since it has creative powers, necessarily conscious.
I choose the latter, because it better fits my experience of the world. As fashionable as it is to think the opposite, I think atheism should be counter-intuitive to anyone who hasn’t been misled by the overreaching claims of some scientists, and the gratuitous application of science’s materialism to a broader metaphysical perspective.
As for religion and society, moral evils have been committed within religious societies, and moral goods have been too. Our evils are committed by us, not by “religion”, as are our goods. Perhaps you can point us to a society that isn’t guided by beliefs, where we do neither?
would you consider the fine tuning argument for God to fit into this category ??
would you consider the cosmological argument for an necessary being to fit into this category?
would you consider the existence of a singularity of infinite mass in zero space/time in this category?
Just trying to narrow down where you feel the parameters are for "justified and sufficient"
As an aside - I think fine tuning argument fails - due to skeptical theism
Even as a rather serious Catholic, it is important to remember that religion is a human undertaking with all the frailties that that entails. Religion is not "God", and "God " is not religion.
I find other flaws in the first two arguments mentioned. I haven't really bother to check them for hasty generalizations, as the other things caught my eye; thus why pile on?
As for the third I haven't really spent enough time on that one to comment one way or the other at the moment.
My reason for mentioning the fallacy of hasty generalizations was that the quote I responded to was itself a hasty generalization and from my perspective unwarranted to conclude.
Oddly enough, it would be hasty to generalize that the listed arguments are themselve guily of such a fallacy simply because of what they intend to argue.
Indeed I could respond to the questions, but to be fair I believe that each of those questions would make very detailed and rich topic of discussion in their own right I'm not too sure I can answer each of them with some adequate explaination for my reason of seeing flaws in such a short commentary.
As you can probably tell, I'm simply not very good at brevity nor do I place much stock in the notion for most philosophical debate.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I don't have a short list or long list for this.
In terms of "justified":
I can say here that anecdotal evidence alone simply doesn't make the cut. Sure anecdotal evidence can be used as a starting point of proper scientific investigation, but alone the gate is left wide open for any unfounded notion or simple misconception to be credible evidence.
In short:
"If you are basing your claims on anecdotal experience, then any treatment will seem to work for anything and everything."
—Steven Novella
The issue of the problems with anecdotal evidence is a large topic on it's own and I really cannot address all of them as I woud like in such a forum.
In terms of "sufficient":
If an single case exceptiong is found it is indeed worthy of investigation, but I'd like to test it and see if it is indeed a common problem of simply a speacial case.
I'd like to say I have been confronted from time to time with folks who have a "new theory" and go to great lenghts to state "this proves Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hugh Everett III and all of them to be wrong"... then only point out a single exception that only their special theory can solve.
My reaction is usually "fine... so it works in this special case. What about all the other cases that are explained quite well by Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hugh Everett III and all of them?"
Sure this might be a small aspect that needs consideration and indeed this new theory might shed some light on a new adaptive method, but if all it I see is a "one-trick pony" I'd say such a thing is not "sufficient" to "prove Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hugh Everett III and all of them to be wrong".
There is quite a bit to explain and cover; thus can it?
On a different tangent:
I also take care of what could be a Cognitive Bias. These are at time obvious, but often quite subtle. Everyone has these tendencies and I find a part of a proper scientific investigation makes an effort to weed them out. This is where peer review plays an important role. It is very easy to overlook flaws in one's own work and have no ability to see this clearly.
Indeed many of the quality controls that would apply have a bit of contingency upon the topic at hand. To be honest I don't plague myself as much over decisions like do I prefer the cherry pie or the apple pie for desert as I would for a desion of does the universe have a specific purpose for myself and everyone. OK... halfway thru eating the pie I might have a sense of disappointment that I didn't choose the other, but that is really of little consequence. Such an epiphany that an error was made halfway into living out a specific purpose and commanding/demanding others live up to a specific purpose would more than likely have far greater consequences.
In short... not all problems are of the same magnitude.
Finally, am I good at any of this?
Well... certainly not as good as I'd like to be, but I try.
In some issue I have some small degree of knowledge, but in most I to have lots to learn. Instead of trying to come up with answers I try to ask better questions and I try to question the given at all times.
"Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
— Samuel Beckett
Sorry the disjointed tangents, but it's all still a work in progress.
Meow!
G
I find this response -
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
decidedly unsatisfying - I have no issue with all of the sited arguments having flaws, or maybe better said - valid arguments against ( as I noted in my aside) - that however would seem a second step. If such argument were patently fallacious simply due to lack of vigor - why would anyone bother with looking for flaws or counter arguments. You position on this seem to support your point.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
If I am missing your point, or if i am suffering from some hyper sensitivity to anti theist posts and read something into this point that was not intended - mea culpa.
Always look forward to your thoughtful replies.
Well... if you had stopped there I'd simply say "OK... it's your life, it's your perception and it's your choice.", but you continued...
Quoting AJJ
In short...
Got evidence or is this simply what is evident to you individually (aka: anecdotal perception)?
Beyond that question I'm not touching this one.
Quoting AJJ
Given the two sentence prior to the final question I have really no idea what context sets up this question; thus I have no idea what you are meaning here as it seems to be addressing many topics at once.
Meow!
G
In a simple example... if one has been searching to purchase a single car, one will probably make short lists of preferences, look at various makes and models, consider driving needs and habits additionally thinking about finances as well as aesthetic preferences. In other words, one would make an investigation into what which car to choose.
Once one makes the decision and has reached a conclusion upon which car to purchase the investigation stops.
Why would one continue to investigate into buying a car once a car has been bought?
One buys the car and the process moving forward is to drive it.
-------------------------------------------
I find the same goes (in a manner of speaking) for a conclusion on the existence of a god.
If one concludes that god does exist, one begins to center their life and worldview according to this conclusion. Much like the car analogy, one begins to simply "drive the belief in god forward"; thus why would one go back to the original question of does a god exist or not exist.
Now buying a car is a big decision for most, but "buying into" the existence of a god is a far greater decision. This forms one's worldview and influences the everyday life of an individual.
If one moves from the initial belief in a god to a theistic ideology (religion) this worldview expands beyond the personal boundries of the individual and begins to set up ideals for others... both those who believe and those who do not.
An odd feature of many (not all) theistic ideologies is to add believers to the ideology. It would be exceedingly difficuölt to add others t o the ideology if one continued to go back to the "dealership" and investigate about "buying into a yes or no" regarding the existence of god.
--------------------------------------------
I don't know if that helps, but if not... I can add more words.
Don't worry if what I write doesn't make sense. I usually don't value my writing as much as the dialog one can have with others to exchange ideas. If anything seeing that what I write is unclear makes me have to work harder to be clearer. ;)
Meow!
G
I have no issue at all with all you posted. and agree for the most part.
However my main concern in both your posts is this. They leave me feeling as you believe that the theist conclusion is either "hasty" or not as thoughtfully investigated as buying a new car. Before I charge into attack on that position - all I have been trying to establish is, is that what your position actually is ?
We suffer from a conflict of style - i attempt to be succinct and as direct as I can be - you seem the opposite - I am not saying one is right and one is wrong - but i feel it is hampering my understanding of what your position is.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Thanks, that’s very patronising of you.
I was thinking in particular of Stephen Hawking’s claim that philosophy is dead, and Peter Atkin’s declamations that everything can be explained by science; things many people it seems will take as given. I was speaking also of science’s methodology of examining and explaining the world in material terms, which, given its success, has lead to a widespread assumption, without serious justification, that everything is in fact material.
I find it difficult to decipher the precise points you make, so I was replying generally to the “religion causes badness” sentiment that seemed apparent in your post.
That not really my point here.
I some cases the belief one has in the existence of a god is hasty. I could really say the very same for the rejection of the belief in god.
I have many friends who are proper theologians. Indeed I do not reach the same conclusion as they do, but I cannot say that their investigations have been without thought or of a hasty nature. We have quality dialogs over many topics including existence of god and in spite of me rejecting their arguments, I can certainly respect them for their investigations.
Now that was concerning theologians... believe me they are not all too common.
As for mainstream beliefs ot rejections of the existence of god, unfortunately many of these are indeed hasty and without too much investigation outside of investigation held firmly within the borders of the given ideology they hold near and dear or perhaps was the only option persented to them from childhood moving forward.
I do not fault them, as until something different is presented how would one know there is another option?
In addition to this I find that the vast majority of folks either don't make or more likely do have the time to go into such a critical analysis. In short they simply have other things to do.
To be fair to them critical debate over the existence of god is not really a common topic in everyday life.
As a side note...
I encounter quite a few "atheists" who are really going through a process of being angered with religion or religious folks. This seems rather odd to me, as if one rejects the existence of god then one is an atheist, but simply rejecting religion makes one irreligious. It's as if they never addressed the issue of god existing and simply threw the baby out with the bath water.
Anyway... I find it to be mostly hasty generalizations and sloppy reasoning (as well as having to listen to them misquote some science documentary the saw narrated by Morgan Freeman as the drink a crafted beer, but that's only my most recent experiences and not a rule ;) ).
Then again... how common is critical thought over the existence of god in everyday life?
---------------------------------
so...
Can one be thoughtful and avoid a hasty generalized view and be theistic?
Certainly.
Do I believe every argument that is thoughtful and avoids hasty generalizations?
No.
Meow!
G
The beginning sounded like a statement of faith based religious belief that I cannot fault.
The way I see it, you can believe that the universe just exists, that part of it is necessary and there’s no explanation why.
Or...
You can believe that the cosmos derives its existence from a sustaining reality beyond it, and, being beyond space and time, is necessarily immaterial, necessarily timeless, and since it has creative powers, necessarily conscious.
I choose the latter, because it better fits my experience of the world.
— AJJ
-------------------------------------------
Please read what you wrote here below once more and explain to me how this is not full of (unsupported) accusations of an aggressive nature; thus making exceedingly difficult to want to deal with much less make a response.
As fashionable as it is to think the opposite, I think atheism should be counter-intuitive to anyone who hasn’t been misled by the overreaching claims of some scientists, and the gratuitous application of science’s materialism to a broader metaphysical perspective.
— AJJ
-------------------------------------------
Quoting AJJ
I can understand that. I'm not always a clear as I'd like to be, but perhaps simply asking "what do you mean" without listing off an (unsupported) attack on science would have been a better means to and end?
Meow!
G
agree
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Agree - with the caveat - One has no need to be a proper theologian to have made a considered decision to be theistic.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
agree - but not relevant to our discussion - same could be said of thousands of other issues many happily ignorant of.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
agree - and with no basis at all I would add many's atheism is not much deeper than " smart people are atheists, I'm smart - so I'm and atheist too"
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
agree - thanks think we have an understanding
My intention was to get across that there’s nothing “hasty” about being a theist, which is what I thought your opinion to be. I gave more detail to the remarks you describe as “aggressive” in my last post. I was rhetorically turning the tables on those who consider atheism to be the default, sensible option, of which I thought you were one; my mistake if you aren’t.
I wouldn't think that is a requirement.
Truth is this is my first venture back into an open forum with the risk of discussing matter in this particular field of debate. My reasons tend to have less to do with religious folks or theists or atheist, but more to do with recent developments of what is the current social convention regarding open internet dialogs... that being whoever yells the loudest or can present themselves as the most offended;thus granting them licence to be even more offensive wins the golden pineapple.
Personally I feel this is a topic that deserves more critical review, but in the light to thin skins and over reactions to toptic criticism as if it were personal criticism resulting in me holding dialogs with theologian.
I suppose I'm testing the waters once more.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I believe I understand what you mean. It kind of reminds me of the "brights" movement. If an appeal to elitism were a fallacy I suppose that would be a valid critique.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I believe so as well.
I'm not really into winning arguments (seriously what the hell is the prize anyway?), but rather collecting information from other perspective more in the hope to refine the questions being asked to become better questions.
In short... all's good here.
Meow!
G
same - have a good day
My only reason for mentioning the fallacy of a hasty generalization is that if one simply concludes without justified and sufficient investigation that is the definition of a hasty generalization.
I find there are strong negative consequences from making hasty generalizations, especially in things that matter to the point of forming a worldview. I find it to be a fair point.
Indeed there are cases in which one reaches a conclusion upon little or no evidence. Decisions as such can include concluding god exists or that god does not exist. In no way am I suggesting that all such decisions pro-theism or contra-theism are hasty, but I feel safe enough to say some such decisions are indeed hasty. Hold the decision that god does exist does not make one immune from hasty generalizations and yes... the same goes for those who hold the decision that god does not exist.
I do realize that in this day and age there is a tendency for both side of this issue to be vitriolic as well as to take offense at the slightest interpreted possible hint of a transgression. This is not exclusive to this debate, but honestly it seems to be the standard modus operandi in all internet based forms of social contact.
I see no point in attacking someone in an exchange of ideas, but I have no reservations in call it when I see it. My intentions are not to intentionally offend and not to view any of these exchanges of ideas as a competition. At the same moment I do not see the virtue in living my life via the filter of someone else's comfort. Basically I try to avoid something called the Courtesy bias:
"The tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone."
I hope that makes some sort of sense. I might be difficult to follow, so I never really know if the points come across well.
Anyway...
That's it.
As to my considerations of atheism.
If one means a person who is an atheist; one who would answer no to the question "does god exist", that's where I am and where I've been since 1990. I have over 35 years of study and debate to back this position. To this day I still review it.
If you mean a person who has developed an ideology founded upon what one does not believe in... that being god... such an ideology is ridiculious. Why would anyone hold an ideology founded upon what they do not believe in? Personally I hold ideals that are subject to revision and as more information/critical review accumulates a subsequent adaption of these ideals should occur, but I cannot say I hold to any ideology.
In short...
To the question does god exist?
My answer is no.
To the question does this not beliving in a god result in an ideology called "atheism" that I adhere to?
My answer is heck no.
Does that help in terms of placing me into context?
I do hope this ends any and all potential misunderstanding of some sort of intellectual wars games going on and we can simply proceed more toward an exchange of ideas with the knowledge that a critical review is indeed potentially in the card.
Meow!
G
Yeah, nothing I feel compelled to argue with there.
In debates between atheists and theists each side almost always condescends the other, I just assume it and take it as a game. My mistake if you truly weren’t doing that and I played back at you without call.
No problem.
As you mentioned it is the common modus operandi in such debates, actually if not in all debates. I rarely suffer from nostalgia, but when it comes to discussions and debates I do miss mutual respect, civility and thicker skins.
Perhaps I simply fail to understand why calling someone else's ideas stupid on first sight or taking every little minutiae (both real and imagined) of a response that differs from one's current preferences as being a direct assualt on one's personal character is at all useful in an exchange of ideas. The pending result is an endless set of self-justified rants in terms of attack or be attacked
My hope is that places like this would be better than Facebook or Reddit. Maybe social networking has been infected too much with this "antisocial disease" of attack or be attacked. That seems to be an intriguing topic for a new thread?
hmm...
Anyway...
If anyone cares to discuss the question does god exist without taking things personally or making attacks of person, using tu quoque or employing constant psychological deflection, I'd find this to be an interesting topic.
Meow!
G
People invent explanations when they can't explain things. Science and logical reasoning is a rather modern method and falsifiability was included in the scientific method as late as the first part of 1900's.
Humans have always been pattern-seeking animals who like to connect dots however possible to grasp what they don't know. If you don't have a method to exclude your own biases while trying to explain something you will most certainly include your own guesses and delusions into that explanation.
To perhaps put it a bit more precisely, the myth making machinery out competed the "I don't know" perspective in the social environment.
It continues to do so today, including on this forum. I write about exploration of the "I don't know" realm all the time on multiple forums for multiple years to an obsessive degree. Such discussion rarely goes anywhere interesting because there just isn't much of a market for it.
Even on new age forums all about meditation and such, the desire for interpretations of experience are typically overwhelming.
So, assuming for the sake of this argument we can trust our senses, that we believe in time and space, in short, we avoid the drunken dorm room philosophy for now.
If what one is discussing has a factual answer. 2+2 =4, than the one taking the I don't know position is either ignorant or a fool
If what one is discussing has an overwhelming more reasonable answer than any other. Unicorns as defined as flying horses with a horn on their forehead do not exist on planet earth. We know something about horses, we know something about flying and we know about horns, and we know about the finite place where we say they do not exist. We can say based on reason alone that we have looked in a lot of places for a long time and no one has seen a unicorn. There for I say I know there are no unicorns. There may well be unicorns in some deep jungle, but based on overwhelming reasonable evidence I can say I know unicorns do not exist and act accordingly. The one who understands the argument and continues with I don't know solely based on it is not a fact. Is to limited to have any meaningful discussion with.
What if there are competing reasonable ideas, neither overwhelms the other. Theism, atheism for example. The option to pick A, B, or I don't know is based on a personal judgment on the importance of the question, and ones opinion on the consequences of the answer. Think of Samuel Jackson in pulp fiction, "go ahead say what one more time". If one feel compelled to answer, than the issue is not the "I don't know" it is the "why are you compelled" that is the base of the disagreement. If one feels the question requires an answer, one is free to chose based on faith between those competing ideas, and say they know, and act accordingly.
I feel what really is the issue is not "I don't know ". It is often I don't think you can say you know anything based on faith.
It is the heart of many of these discussions, does faith exist, and if so, does it have any value, can it lead in any way to "knowing "
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, that's philosophy, of course entirely appropriate here. It's also philosophy to analyze the evidence and reasonably conclude that philosophy has failed to yield much but more of the same on the largest of questions. It's also philosophy to put down one tool which is arguably not working and reach for another tool.
It's a step forward to understand that all these positions are built upon faith as you wisely remind us, and thus aren't actually philosophy after all, but rather the illusion of philosophy.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Imho, if one is compelled to answer, and is using reason instead of faith (theist or atheist), one arrives at the "I don't know" place, agnosticism.
If one continues to reason, one can travel beyond a failure to know, to an embrace of not knowing. As I see it, the bottom line goals of both theism and atheism can be reached by this process. Reason is respected, and reality becomes rather more miraculous when the focus is on reality itself instead of our interpretations of reality.
But anyway, like I said, not a huge market for this approach.
Ok, lets have that discussion then. Yes faith exists, yes it can of some value to people who have it. Its not value that we need to look at, it is its value in knowing if something is true thats important here.
Is faith a good way to know if some is true? No, it isnt.
...becuase it has none of the traits that we use to determine what is true and the traits that it does possess can just as easily lead to erroneous conclusions as correct ones. It has zero explanatory power. Its not even an actual reason to believe something, it is precisely the answer people give when they DO NOT have a reason. If they actually had a reason then they would answer with that reason instead of with “faith”.
Depends how one defines true. How I would define it is a belief that underscores what one does. One acts in accordance with what one believes to be true. Often these actions require a choice between competing reasonable alternatives.
As we go through the green light in our car, we have faith that other drivers will stop at the red. It is not a matter of fact they will stop, it is reasonable to believe they will stop, it is reasonable to believe many will not. Going through the light is an act of faith.
Yes. What now seems like a curious phenomenon might have helped us outcompete other species in the past. Theism and other such beliefs might be a quirk of nature - an anomaly. There's a similar kind of explanation for why there are now so many overweight people.
Party B is wrong. You can't know anything by faith. Faith is a means of achieving peace of mind, not a means of obtaining knowledge. If you want truth, you have to search for it.
This is a very poor way of defining “true”. What you are suggesting is “true” is what people accept as true. Not the same thing Im afraid, and you only define truth that way to service your defense of faith. You seem a sensible enough fellow, i doubt you would define truth that way in any other context. If I went jumping off of buildings (“what one does”) becuase I think I can fly (“a belief that underscores”), would you say its true that I can fly?
John 18:38 - Seems to me not to be a point, a singularly- but an almost limitless idea requiring a personal definition. Quite akin to faith actually.
If what you mean by truth is fact. Than I agree faith has little to add in the findings of fact.
No offense, but this example of faith shows that you did not understand what I have said sbout faith.
This is not an example of faith, faith is not the reason for going through the green light. You have actual reasons for that. You know that if your light is green for go, the other cars have red lights for stop. You know other people are trying to avoid car accidents, etc
You have good reasons for going through. It requires no faith.
This is a non-sequitor. This is a sidestep so you do not have to address your poor definition of true.
Why is it hard to believe? You only say that becuase you do not have faith (a good thing).
People are taught to have faith, to use it as justification. This is no different than if you were taught anything erroneous, like being taught in school that the earth is flat. Would we be surprised that a person taught that, believed that?
Good point. You know, I almost added, "especially for a philosophy enthusiast", but then I remembered that, in some ways, philosophy is a parody of itself.
No, you do not see this as being an argument you can actually win. You are in fact being dismissive, because you cannot come up with answers to what I have said. This is incredibly dishonest of you, to claim this isnt productive and of no benifit to either of us. It is also dishonest to pretend you must withdraw for that reason when its simply because you have already lost the argument.
Thats fine, your character is your business, but I invite you to stop participating in these discussions as they will always lead to you refusing to participate becuase you will always come down to “faith” being your reason and you can not and will not defend it. This is a frustrating waste of time for others.
You might also be tempted to chalk this up to aggressive atheism, or me being a prick or me not understanding what you are saying...I urge you to recognise that these are hiding places, just like using faith as a basis and then refusing to discuss or defend it is a hiding place. Im sorry to say sir, that this is a decidedly cowardly way to engage.
I understand that this may seem like an attack, and that your reaction will be to dismiss or ignore what I am saying, cuz who am I to say something like that to you, right? Well, you must decide why im saying it...if it is because im just a hateful atheist, an insulting person, for ego or whatever other negative reason then it makes sense to dismiss or ignore me, but recognise that it might also be the case that I am trying to help, that my intentions are good...its just a difficult, emotional and potentially offensive point to have to make.
You will have to decide for yourself.
You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example.
It's alright, I understand. We all have our coping mechanisms.
I think I understand what you mean, and indeed the same observation can be said about humans themselves.
My judgement is that there is nothing you can say to me on this topic that will be of any value to me. And likewise it is my judgment there is nothing I can say on this topic that you will value. I may be mistaken in my judgment, it has happened before, but if neither of us will gain anything, what is the point.
The not-so-wise ape.
“Not-so-wise” compared to what?
You or I could discover we are wrong, (that is very valuable) we could find out we are both wrong (the difficult one) We could trigger each other into thinking about it in a different way and explore the avenue together (the rarest and grandest reward by my account)....does none of that hold value to you?
I do not think your concern is about what you might gain, but rather what you might lose.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Well this I would agree in at least. Winning an argument is the means, not the goal. The goal of course is enlightenment, learning, growing etc.
I am not sure what is left to be said on the subject.
I am aware of only 3 basic arguments against theism.
1. No seeum arguments - basically we have looked around and we don't see God, or any convincing evidence of God, therefore God does not exist.
2. The argument from evil - A God who is the 3 O's can not permit evil, evil exists therefore God does not
3. All the 3O paradoxes ( almost left these out - not sure they meet the standard of argument)
All are reasonable arguments and all have equally reasonable challenges.
I am not aware of 1 reasonable argument for a 3 O God.
But there are good arguments for a necessary being or uncreated creator.
These are reasonable, and also have reasonable objections.
I see little purpose to re hash these arguments with others who are aware of them. They are important arguments that those who are unaware should understand.
What I do think is a more important discussion is, is theism a reasonable belief? I know of no argument that ends in a conclusion that theism is unreasonable. If one could make a good argument that theism is outside reason, then theists like me would have to abandon our belief or be fools.
In the interim, until such an argument exists- then my hope is that both theist and atheist would respect each other's position as reasonable, and currently un resolvable.
Compared to my arse.
For the love of god and all things holy, please, not that. Anything but that. :pray:
Yes. And winning. :zip:
Lol, well its hard to argue with that. Touche.
It's a wise crack.
How dare you be so sensible!!! What is your problem??? Attention moderators!! :smile:
I have really no idea what this criticism has to do with my comment.
I was simply asking for clarification as to what was meant by "forget theism" in another post. In my reply I simply asked if they meant we should forget theism, as in have it leave out memories.
An understanding of the basics of theism is required to understand large portiont of cultural history. Having theism forgotten would mean that necessary aspect to understand history would be lost.
Meow!
G
Here's a couple of questions for you.
I spoke of debating the existence of god and what you mentioned here were 3 arguments against theism.
Is theism (an ideology) the same as the existence of god (an ideal)?
If one has an ideal, does that mean one must have an ideology formed around that ideal or could one simply have an ideal that does not result in an ideology?
Basically is an ideal and ideology the same thing?
Meow!
G
It's not complicated. You said that you wouldn't advocate forgetting theism. I pointed out that you're saying that from a position of privilege, and I think that I made it clear what I meant by that. The thing is, that decision wouldn't just affect you and your bourgeois concerns. Some people have more pressing concerns. Some people are stuck with the short end of the stick. And for these people, that decision could be profoundly life changing.
I realize that, it was funny. I was just not funny back apparently.
Not sure how we could separate them for the purpose of our discussion. Don't see much difference between what you believe to exist, does or does not exist, and it exists or not. If that is what you are asking.
Hopefully not in the biblical sense. I'm pretty sure there's a para somewhere in the bible forbidding that sort of thing. :razz:
That's fine.
Quoting S
How do you know what position I'm coming from on the basis of so little information?
Do you know where I'm from?
Do you know any conditions of my life, past or present?
Exactly what makes me come from this assumed position of privilege you speak of?
Well... perhaps what you stated was clear, but the foundation is certainly not.
Quoting S
How do you know that this sort of decision will not affect my life?
How do you know what my concerns happen to be?
Actually, do you really know my concerns at all?
Is the basis of a handful of posts on my part on rather specific points of conversation a tell all of my concerns?
What makes you think that the assumptions you have asserted about my concerns are indeed charactistic of bourgeois concerns?
What exactly are bourgeois concerns?
Quoting S
Indeed... and what concerns are these that are more pressing?
Why are my assumed concerns, assumed to be bourgeois concerns, not as pressing as the concerns of "some people"; an undisclosed group of people set up as an unseen authority?
Quoting S
Are you somehow aware of "what end of the stick I have been "stuck with"?
What makes you think you can possibly know what end of the stick I have been in my experience?
Do you know where I live?
Where is have lived?
What my education consists of?
How I can to my education?
What supports and obstacles I have in the process of my education?
Do you know anything about me really?
Quoting S
So the notion here is that this decision makes a less profound change in my life than this undisclosed appeal to authority, why is that so?
Is that so?
How do you know in any way whatsoever what changes have occurred in my life; be they profound or less profound?
-----------------------------
In short, your response here is bleeding with hasty assumptions and appeals to an unseen authority with an undisclosed standard of measure of which I seem to have been assumed to have "better in of a stick" as compared to an undisclosed group of other some people; thus have no profound experiences worthy of discussion as I'm assumed to be bourgeois in my concerns that you have never bothered to concern yourself with asking what they might be, but simply brushed them off as a position of privilege.
WOW!
You got all that from next to no personal information and a handful of posts on a rather specific topic?
AMAZING!
I ask you if you'd care to see if all of your (blind) assumptions are true or perhaps in parttrue, but I seems more that you have decided to paint a preffered narritive of how you believe I must be in character and concerns upon the basis of extremely little, but as you decided to make your self-assumed points via an assumption (an attack) on my character rather than on the content of the debate I can say I have no interest in discussing personal matter with you.
Feel free to be angry with me if you so do choose and if you'd like we can bring in the Ads and Mods of this forum to weigh the matter.
As I view it we are done.
Meow!
G
My point is this...
I am interested in discussing the existence of god.
I am not interested in discussing the validityand soundness of an ideology.
In other words I am interested in whether god exists and not the subsequent religious notions that form after it is assumed that god exists: thus I am not interested in a discussion about the validity of theism (an ideology).
To be fair, if we cannot establish that god exists what point is there in bothering to discuss the subsequent theistic ideologies (theism) that follows?
To my knowledge there are 36 arguments for the existence of god.
All arguments for the validity and soundness of theism would hing on one of the 36 arguments staning up as vailid with true premises.
One thing I can say is that these arguments for god's existence are claimed as empirical a posteriori. They differ from staements of faith (or so it is claimed). If one claims they have faith in the existence of god I will not argue with that as it is not a matter of empirical knowledge, but rather a centering of the being (Tillich). I will grant one faith, but I will debate empirical a posteriori claims.
Does that make sense?
Meow!
G
Understand, happy to play the theist foil if you wish. A few caveats. I have no reason based argument for “god” of the Christian bible.
And I have nothing new to add the CA.
Also happy to argue against the atheist arguments I noted above, but that is also a well worn path
Still find it more useful to challenge the atheist to argue my theism is unreasonable. More interested in establishing respect for theism as a reasoned possibility from the atheist than a debate to an unanswerable question.
So you mean you base your belief in this (provided this is indeed the god of you belief... you haven't really said that outright and all I an say is it seems to be the case) god of the Christian bible upon faith and not empirical a posteriori reasoning?
If so, fair enough.
Quoting Rank Amateur
To tell the truth I have never bothered with atheist arguments. I've never quite understood the point of it.
If I wish to argue the existence of a new species I believe does exist, the proper method would be to argue that the species exists rather than argue why the yet to be confirmed species does not exist.
It seems to me that to argue in favor of a position that is founded only in the rejection of another assertion of belief is a bit odd. Why wouldn't one simply ask for evidence to prove the existence of something claimed to exist instead?
Wouldn't it make more sense to strenghten the argument for the existence of god; thus moving on to prove this point to be sound?
To simply find fault in the criticism against the argument for existence only illustrates/exposes that a particular criticism against the argument for the existence is executed poorly done or is weak. Illustrating/exposing poorly done logic or weakness in a criticism against a point does not prove the initial point of the argument. It only illustrates/exposes weakness in the criticism.
Indeed I find errors and weakness in some points of criticism regarding god existing, but these errors and weaknesses do nothing to prove the notion that god exists.
It seems unless we are wishing to refine the criticism against the existence of god there is really no point in this folly.
Meow!
G
You're from a developed, first world country in the West, or central Europe, correct? That's all I need to know. I forget where exactly. Austria? Somewhere in the U.S.? Probably nothing like Saudi Arabia.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I do believe I made it pretty clear that my criticism is not solely based on your life, but takes into account numerous other lives.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I'm not committing any fallacy, but I am judging the situation based on a certain standard, and that's not something I'm trying to conceal. Basically, according to my standard, those who are suffering from actual oppression take precedence over bourgeois concerns about not understanding works of art and the like.
Yes, my belief in the Christian God of the Bible is based on faith
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
This is all fair and I have no issue with that. My only caveat would be if one is not withholding judgment do to a belief the proposition is not supported, but still possible. That is a very different thing than making a judgment the thing does not exist because of lack of evidence. The later is an active judgment to a proposition. If one wishes to challenge that proposition as false, one should be willing to justify that position. If the only objection is, you have not convinced me, it is a rather short and fruitless discussion.
Let me put what I find an interesting discussion in a more formal structure.
I believe by faith that God of the Bible is true, true being a personal belief that one tries to act in accordance with.
I believe it is not a matter of fact that God is, or God is not
I believe there are reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of God
I believe none of these arguments completely overwhelm the others
Therefore I concluded my belief by faith is not in conflict with fact or reason, and a such should be respected as a valid belief.
Happy to discuss reasoned arguments that either my propositions are false, or my conclusion does not follow.
Gee...
What could possibly be hasty about that?
Quoting S
Which explains why you addressed your reply it in such a personal matter to me. So I am also a generalization of the lives of others that have been generalizied according to a region of the world?
Again... what could possibly be hasty about that?
Quoting S
Well... then why are you bothering to rant at me about this?
It seems you clearly believe that since I think in a certain manner, you assume I live in a certain way and have concerns in a certain direction as guided by a certain position of privilege all judged by a standard that you "have clearly disclosed" as you just now revealed it... well you make it as if due to the notion you that have that about self-assumed certainties in my life, but not according to my life in particular , but the context of a group of people assumed to be like me that are judged by a certain standard that you just now revealed that was obvious before it was revealed, but anyway... : Quoting S
...so I cannot possibly understand what the other people (I guess you mean people in Saudi Arabia... why Saudi Arabia? Weird as I know a few Saudis including some of my neighbours, but hey uhh... What does that have to do with anything I've ever posted in this thread?) have to deal with in terms of the "short end of the stick" if this is indeed Quoting S?
I'm sorry but this is far too ridiculous to deal with anymore, so I'll just say the odd non sequitur thoughts you are attempting to voice are right, I am wrong and I am guilty as charged, so now will you simply leave it alone as I am giving you your whatever it is victory.
You "win", so let's call it done.
Done!
G
Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
You fall under a general category, yes. I'm in the same category. It's the category of residing in a place in the world that is developed, prosperous, liberal, tolerant, and democratic. A category which has stark differences to places like Saudi Arabia, which I'm using as an example because of reasons like this.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I assumed that you either knew about the situation in Saudi Arabia or were capable of looking it up on the internet. Perhaps I should not have made that assumption.
Anyway, I think my standard of judgement was obvious from the start. Apparently, from what you're now saying, you just didn't pick up on it.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Here's a task for you. Read that article I linked to, then compare it to the situation of wherever it is you reside, then report back with any relevant differences you notice.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Yes, it's oh so ridiculous! Hasty generalisation! Non sequitur! Getting personal! Only cares about winning!
Nice try.
OK... a final bit of fun.
Let's play... FIND THE QUESTION!!!
Quoting S
No question there, so let|s move on.
Quoting S
Ha! Questions...
In short the question is:
Do live somewhere is that not like Saudi Arabia?
My answer is yes I live somewhere that is not like Saudi Arabia.
Now my question...
And your point is?
OK... let's review the single sentence in a reply not direct to you that made you get your panties in a bunch.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Fine.
What is the connection between my not living in Saudi Arabia and this sentence according to you; thus it being a critique:
Quoting S
So the question remains what is the connection between me writing a single sentence; "If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion", and you posting: "You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example."?
Second question would be, what question am I avoiding as you now suggested; "Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why", when no question was presented in your original rant of: "You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example", but second reply contained a muddle of assumptions finally ending in a sort of question Do live somewhere is that not like Saudi Arabia?
------------------------------------------------
After thinking about this I had to make a few assumptions of my own to make really anything think you have thought you have written to be clear understanable into some sort of sense.
The only thing I can come up with is because the illustration I posted, that being to answer the question of why do artist in medieval paintings make babies (especially Jesus) look like an old man one would need an understanding of thesim to have this make sense. OH! ... and I did mention that this was even a trivial example as to illustrate that even in trivial things forgetting theism altogether would leave massive gaps of understanding of past history; thus to avoid having misunderstandings and complete voids in the understanding of history it would be indeed necessary to have some sort of understandng of thesim (EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE) to make sense of large parts of cultural history.
The only reason I can come up with as to why you basically blew your top, was that you personally find to even think of the notion of medieval paintings can only come from a position of privilege and bourgeois concerns?
I still have no idea what you mean by Saudi Arabia.
My position is that one would be better advised not to forget thesim.
Gee whiz!
Did a sudden wave of dictatorial hard anti-theism occur there and thus they are no longer an Islamic Nation?
Is it now the case if anyone in thinks about theism or remembers theism that there's a thought police to make them pay big time?
Or is it that anyone who mentions medieval paintings is an enemy of the state?
Or possible is it that if anyone wonders why a baby looks like an old man they are arrested on the spot?
Let's face it... you have provided no question whatsoever. You have only ranted in a manner unbecoming of anyone associated with philosophy or basic manners. You then run the course by making some sort of flimsy psychological deflection claiming that I am a wholelist of things that you have nothing but the voices inside the vacuum of you mind to support. In some sort of self.justified delusional state of moral high ground you have completey taken a reply to someone else so far out of context is have become unrecognizable to anyone expect yourself.
In short... your behaviour is an insult to good reason and the members of this forum. It would bid well if you simply crawed off to a conspiracy chan.
In short... I have had enough of you.
[Mod censored]!
G
Quoting S
Found it.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
How many more times do you want me to make it? My point has been made multiple times, and you can find it in my previous comments.
If you value art over real people suffering from oppression, then that's that. You aren't adding anything of value to the discussion with your ranting and rambling. Good day to you, sir.
At some point that language gave birth to a shared spirituality to fulfill the curiosity. Because if your language is very illustrative and narrative based, then surely any philosophical thoughts you will have would come out spiritual. Then those first spiritual teachings developed into religions.
Atheism could be a relatively new development caused by splitting the old illustrative language into separate ones such as mathematics, science, engineering etc.Causing an advancement into our understanding of the universe and thus eliminating God from it.
Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool. Science, in contrast, is a highly-focused and highly-developed single-use tool. If Religion and philosophy are Swiss Army knives, science is a stilletto. There's nothing wrong with this; it's just how things are. Without the focus and development, even though it leaves many other issues behind in doing so, science would (could) not be the valuable tool it is. It is fashioned to be the ultimate tool in a heavily-restricted subject area. And the restrictions directly bring about its ultimate accolade.
Bald unfounded statements. Ancestor worship is demonstrably far older. Even if there is a case to be made (which there probably is) that the romans eradicated atheism at the time, by no means does that demonstrate that thus atheism was far older. At most it can claim that thus there were at least some atheists around at the time it got eradicated by the romans. To then make the claim that thus atheism is far older is rather jumping the conclusions.
Quoting VoidDetector
If people are to live peacefully together, a commonly shared model of the world is required. Atheism doesn't provide a model that is sufficient for that, since atheism is just the rejection of certain models, not the acceptation of any model. Though rejecting useless models or less useful models can be a useful thing to do, rejecting all models without replacing them with more useful models leads to disaster.
Luckily most people claiming to be atheist don't actually do this. Instead they replace an older, for them less useful model (their interpretation on a certain older religion) with a for them more useful model (in most cases science). And though science is limited in it's applications on the human conditions, the part where it does apply is very useful, and in those cases an improvement on older models. However, these people are more believers in science than actual atheists, since they adopted science as their god.
Because religion, spirituality, and fantasy come to people trying to figure out the unknown without having the tools to really understand them. It happens today as well, when someone can't explain something, they attach delusions and fantasy to them before trying to make logical sense. I would say that it's part of the system 1 and 2 of how we think. System 1 is instinctual, it acts directly but does not think as we think it does, it only uses previously known information. It then feeds new information to system 2 which "thinks" about it and organize new information into new ideas combined with old information, that we then act upon in system 1. So when people encountered something they couldn't explain, they most likely reacted with system 1 and without any other information, they let system 2 make up an explanation to why that was.
This is why historians reason that the first religions were smaller, village-based religions which differed around the same concepts such as floods, thunder, famine etc. The larger religions and pantheons then evolved when trade-routes were formed between these villages, like a "sticky boulder" which rolled through the land, collecting bits and pieces of different spiritual and religious ideas and formed a larger narrative, which took over. So each of the larger religions throughout history started off with small fragments of smaller ones.
In essence, it's easy to understand why religion and spirituality formed because it always forms within people who try to understand something unknown without the right tools to do it outside of their own mind. It's taken us over ten thousand years to reach a point where we have scientific methods to figure out something without influencing it with our own fantasies.
Okay. Well, I've purchased and tested both. I would like a refund on the religion multi-tool, please.
No, you're the one committing a fallacy. There's no evidence that humans drank alcohol prior to 10,000 years ago. There's evidence that humans were in Africa around 300,000 years ago. It is quite possible that there were humans who were sober before drinking was even discovered. If they hadn't discovered alcohol at the time, then they certainly couldn't have been drunk on it, and they therefore must have been sober in that respect. Just because the word, concept, knowledge, or whatever, didn't exist at the time, that doesn't mean that they weren't sober. We can say lots of true statements like that about early humans. They weren't vaccinated, weren't fans of Elvis, weren't Republicans, and so on...
Quoting S
Fair enough. That a tool is available doesn't mean you have to use it. Maybe you don't have the sort of questions that religion might answer? It doesn't matter. Like I said, religion isn't compulsory. :up: :smile:
I'd like to disagree. Soberness is the quality of not being drunk, so it's just a negation. Before alcohol was invented nobody was drunk but that doesn't mean one can say everyone was sober, because drunkenness and Soberness didn't exist. Just like you wouldn't say ancient Egyptians were anti-vaxxers, because vaccination was not even a thing back then let alone it's negation.
That an inferior[/I] tool is available doesn't mean that I have to use it. I [i]do[/I] have many of the questions that religion fails to answer well. And I definitely am [i]not suggesting that religion is compulsory, though thank god it isn't where I'm from. You seem to be missing the point by a country mile.
Oh, I thought we had reached a realisation that we had no significant disagreement here. :chin:
If we did, then your reply before the one quoted above appears to have changed that. You could of course make that clear by simply saying whether or not you agree with what I just said in my last reply to you.
You're free to disagree, but if you do so on that basis, then your disagreement is unreasonable. It is true of people before the discovery of what alcohol can do when enough of it is consumed that they were not drunk from alcohol. Denying that suggests otherwise, and good luck explaining that one!
Quoting unforeseen
Then they were sober by your own definition! :lol:
Quoting unforeseen
That only makes sense because we think of anti-vaxxers as [i]being against[/I] vaccination.
If you take that away, then you're simply wrong. It is true that they were not in favour of vaccination, that they were not fans of Elvis, were not drunk on alcohol before that was discovered, and so on and so forth.