• How do you feel about religion?
    I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest. — S

    Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications.

    Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process.

    You aren't doing reason. You're doing ideology. That is, you're replicating in your own process the very thing about religion which you reasonably object to. You have met the enemy, and he is you. :smile:
  • Evidence for the supernatural
    I interpreted it to mean "Let go of the rope." Meaning, put yourself entirely in my hands. — Bitter Crank

    Yes, that's what I heard too.

    I assume that our unfortunate climber would soon arrive at the gates of heaven after having let go. In heaven we will find eternal rest in the care of God. Heaven will be an altogether pleasant experience, I have been led to believe. — Bitter Crank

    That is how the story generally goes. Let's quickly recall how the story came to be.

    First, whoever wrote these stories seemed to have something on the ball, as evidenced by the fact that the stories are still in use 2,000 - 3,000 years later, a remarkable accomplishment for any author.

    Second, the intended audience for these stories was all mankind. More specifically the audience in the time the stories were written were typically "salt of the earth" uneducated peasants.

    Point being, perhaps we shouldn't assume that the stories were ever intended to be literally true, just because a great many highly mediocre clerical commentators have asserted this to be the case.

    The stories might be better compared to a novel or play, where one uses an entirely fictional tale to illuminate deep truths about the human condition. Given the intended audience, everybody on Earth, such fictional tales would necessarily have to be fairly simple.

    As with art, the strength of such stories may be that they open the door to many different interpretations. I have my theories, you have yours, as do millions of others, and from such diversity a global conversation on the state of the human condition is built. This is how a skilled philosophy professor would conduct their class. They wouldn't give us The Answer, but instead set a stage upon which the class can conduct their own investigation.

    So, in your story above, the message could be...

    "Let go of the rope, because when you do you'll discover there was never any separate, alone, vulnerable, isolated entity holding the rope."

    One interpretation....
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play. — S

    Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"?
  • Evidence for the supernatural
    Through stories like this children (and adults) are encouraged to think that God might (possibly, maybe, perhaps) show up in the hour of great need and save us. — Bitter Crank

    In your example story above God said, "Let go." This sounds like God giving up, throwing in the towel, abandoning the man on the mountain.

    Or is it? What if the man never was a separate thing? What if his experience of separateness is only a compelling illusion generated by the operating system of his mind? If the larger truth is that the man never was a separate thing, then he can't die, thus there's nothing to worry about, and the advice from God was pretty practical.

    Maybe God is saying let go of the rope. Or maybe he's saying, let go of the illusion that you are a separate thing?
  • How do you feel about religion?
    If you want me to justify a claim that I've made then quote the claim and request a justification — S

    It would be more interesting to see you challenge one of your own claims. Then you could claim to be a person of reason, instead of just another holy war ideologue waving a flag.

    As example, my claim is that nobody knows. But if nobody knows, how could I know that nobody knows??

    Imagine that you are an attorney. You might be hired to represent those suing, or you might be hired by those defending against the suit. Can you effectively argue both sides of the case? Or only one side?
  • How do you feel about religion?
    A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed. — S

    Hmm, it seems what you meant to say was...

    Other people's claims demand justification, otherwise they can rightly be dismissed.
  • How does paper money get its value?
    This three hour documentary about the Federal Reserve explains the issue well. Very educational, worth watching.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maC7phpUVno
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    From the atheist point of view, all that is at stake is a fallacious belief — Wayfarer

    Yes, and it should be said that most discussion of religion on philosophy (and atheist) forums is typically hopelessly lost in the illusion that religion is about little other than ideological assertions.
  • How does paper money get its value?
    In days gone by the US dollar WAS actually backed by a physical amount of gold or silver which was held in a vault somewhere. The bank note was basically a promise from the government/treasury to pay the bearer their share of that gold/silver. Hence it did have value back then as the notes were underpinned by real assets. Of course the fraudulent bankers did away with all of that years ago. — Pilgrim

    As I recall Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. I believe that was to avoid the huge bill Johnson ran up while trying to have the Vietnam war AND the Great Society programs at the same time.

    I agree that the current system is just a ponzi scheme that is inevitably going to collapse at some point. When that happens it will likely unfold with lightning speed.
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    Outside and gratifyingly above, sounds like. — praxis

    Well, I am a forum poster after all.
  • Bannings
    Pompous rants aren't allowed on a philosophy forum? :smile:
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty. — Pattern-chaser

    Yes, agreed, up to a point. When faith is purely personal it can often be labeled as a positive force. When the faith starts trying to influence the society beyond the personal it has sometimes been deadly, and sometimes constructive.

    When I label atheists as being people of faith I'm not trying to pin a crime on them, I'm reaching for clarity. It's not clarity if one thinks one is above faith when one is not.

    I have faith that if I keep patiently typing day after day after day on these subjects for another twenty years nothing at all will be accomplished, but I'll still be typing, and that seems to be my bottom line. :smile:
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE. — DingoJones

    I'm not sure I understand your question, but I see where my choice of words could be confusing.

    My personal opinion is that IF there something like a God it doesn't seem credible to me that it would be bound by rules created by a species as small as ourselves. That's kind of like assuming that ants could understand the Internet, except very much more so.

    By "logic" I just meant human reason, and should have used that phrase instead.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    ...or they accept it on the grounds that God is above logic. — S

    I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.

    God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.

    Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.

    It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.

    We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.

    The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.

    Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.

    What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.

    Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.

    Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.

    But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.

    Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence.
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    I was wondering if you’ve thoroughly challenged your own lofty position. In claiming “our” ignorance, you’re saying that both theists and atheists are ignorant and don’t know the truth of the matter. — praxis

    No one has proven any position. You feel that theists are ignorant because they haven't proven anything, and I agree. All I'm doing is applying the very same process you use in regards to theists to atheists as well. I'm the real atheist here, in the sense that I'm being loyal to the principles atheism is built upon.

    You can claim your own ignorance. No one would object to that. Agnosticism, I think it’s called. — praxis

    In my case I call myself a "Fundamentalist Agnostic", a silly ironic label which points to a position outside of the theist vs. atheist paradigm.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Atheism does not have a claim, it's a process of reasoning — Christoffer

    The problem here is that, like most atheists, you sincerely don't realize that atheism is built upon a claim. The next problem may perhaps be that you've built a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, thus creating a substantial built in bias against any threat to that worldview.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Atheism has not done that either since it has never claimed anything at all, it's just a process. — Christoffer

    Atheism claims that process is relevant to issues the scale of gods. So prove that claim please. Please be loyal to your own chosen methodology. Apply that process with equal enthusiasm to all positions. Be intellectually honest.

    Or, another option would be to relinquish any claim to be a person of reason in regards to these particular topics, and declare yourself to be an ideologist. There's no crime in that, all of us are entitled to adopt a position for no other reason that we wish to.

    Reason is similar to faith in that it involves an act of surrender. Like with faith, to be reasoners we must follow reason where ever it takes us, we don't get to choose where the trail will lead. Ideologists on the other hand are free to pick any destination, travel there, and then build a little fort.

    I'm offering no judgement as to whether a person should be a reasoner or ideologist in regards to any particular subject. That's their choice to make. All I'm saying is...

    Ideologists don't get to claim to be reasoners with impunity.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    This is the fundamental misinterpretation of atheism. Theists view it as an ideology, as a statement, as something solid as a statue, when it's instead a concept of thought — Christoffer

    The statement, the claim, is that the concept of thought you're referencing is relevant to issues the scale of gods. Prove that please.

    Theism vs. atheism is just a contest between two competing authorities, neither of which has been proven qualified to usefully address the questions of vast scale being considered.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Faith is about claiming something without proof, atheism doesn't claim anything without proof, — Christoffer

    Please prove the qualifications of human reason to credibly analyze the very largest of questions about all of reality, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc).

    If we apply atheist principles to atheism itself, atheism collapses. Reason is of course still proven useful in countless cases on human scale.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    If an atheist actively asserts the non-existence of God, they occupy a faith position, according to what you say, and to what you and I seem to believe. — Pattern-chaser

    Yes, agreed.

    But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. — Pattern-chaser

    I don't see a problem either, but their belief is still based on faith, faith in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.

    A complication often is that their faith is unexamined, taken to be an obvious given, a strong blind faith, so they don't experience it as faith. And so they come on a forum and with all sincerity claim that atheism is not based on faith, because they don't see the faith it is based on.

    But belief without proof remains a faith position, as you say. — Pattern Chaser

    Ok, we're on basically the same page. Which is refreshing, as it's often me vs. the entire forum. :smile:
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Now we are going into the epistemological territory of what we can know and what we cannot know. — Christoffer

    Imho, you're working way too hard here. You don't make it this complicated when analyzing theism. You just ask for proof, and when none is provided you walk away.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Point is that atheism is purely the process of thinking about the world, life and universe in the way of facts, in the way of not giving up a pursuit for truth and knowledge and never give in to irrational faith whenever something is unexplained. — Christoffer

    Why do you have faith in the ability of reason to meaningfully analyze the largest of questions (scope of god claims), when there is no proof of such an ability?

    All I'm asking you to do is apply the very same challenge procedure you reasonably apply to theism to atheism as well. Although your posts are very intelligent and articulate, to me they seem to boil down to an attempt to fancy talk your way out of intellectual honesty.

    Is the infinite ability of holy books proven? No, theism declined.

    Is the infinite ability of reason proven? No, atheism declined.

    By "infinite ability" I mean a methodology proven qualified to deliver credible answers about the largest of questions regarding the most fundamental nature of all reality, ie. the scope of most god claims.

    A person who walks away from theism is not automatically an atheist, for they may reject the chosen authority of the atheist as well.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god — Christoffer

    If you can't prove that human reason is binding upon all of reality (and thus any gods within), there's no reason to think reason is so qualified. It's the simplest thing, and once seen, the whole God debate merry-go-round to nowhere comes screeching to a halt.

    That's bad news for those who have a large collection of memorized arguments they wish to put on display, but good news for those who want to follow the investigation where ever it may lead.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. — Pattern-chaser

    Respectfully disagree. If a person of any position thinks that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, without any proof that this is so, they are a person of faith. Belief without proof = faith. This equation applies equally to everyone on all sides of the issue.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged. — Christoffer

    Having spent 20 years on philosophy and atheism forums, I can assure you that atheists also often react emotionally when their faith is challenged. As best I can recall, I've been banned from every atheist forum I ever joined, just as I've been banned from every Catholic forum I've ever joined. I see no fundamental difference between the two.

    Challenging is generally ok, because the challenge gives the true believers the opportunity to rise up as a group and reinforce their dogmas in the response. That is after all why they started a forum about their beliefs to begin with, to create a mutual validation society.

    Presenting an effective challenge is the crime that gets you banned, because now you are threatening the glue that holds the mutual validation society together.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life. — Christoffer

    That's often true, agreed. But it doesn't have to be true. There's nothing stopping atheists from falling in love with reality with the same enthusiasm that theists fall in love with their saints and gods etc.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. — Christoffer

    Your post looks quite articulate so I will be returning to it, and keeping an eye out for your other posts. Thanks for that. As a quick place to start....

    Please prove that human reason, the poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies in who knows how many universes, is binding upon all of reality (a realm which can't be defined in even the most basic manner such as size and shape) and thus upon any gods contained within.

    You feel that the authorities theism is typically built upon (holy books and clergy etc) have not proven themselves qualified to credibly speak to the largest of questions, and so you reasonably decline theism.

    All that's left to do is to apply that very same procedure to atheism. There's nothing new to learn, just do the very same thing you already do with theism. If the qualifications of the chosen authority can not be proven, decline the assertions arising from that authority.
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you? — Jake
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    I just politely requested that you supply us the correct 'instructions' for what I was lead to believe is a method for seriously challenging atheism. — praxis

    And you received what you requested.

    Start a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that members reasonably challenge theism.
  • How do you feel about religion?
    ...but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that (religious) comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way. — Christoffer

    I like where you're going here. A few thoughts...

    1) The target shouldn't be opening the door to atheism, but opening the door to reason. Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has.

    2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest.

    Here's an example. For the moment, let's forget all about anything to do with theism. Put all that off the table for now. Pretend it never existed.

    What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest?

    Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself.

    And members have no interest in this, right? Ok, no problem. But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves.
  • The Forum is Biased for Atheism and Against Religion
    What upsets the moderators (and the moderators are biased) is when someone makes a claim like "If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are doomed to hell!" I have a sister who says that fairly often; she would be banned pretty quickly from here. — Bitter Crank

    It seems to me it's less important what claim is being made than HOW it is made. Can the theist or atheist make an at least somewhat interesting case? Are they somewhat articulate?
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    Would you mind posting the correct instructions? — praxis

    The instructions had a specific purpose which would be defeated by spoon feeding them in to this thread. Here's the theory....

    Imagine the theist who says he wants to see if theism can be demolished. The first question we should investigate is, does the theist really want to do this? One way to find out would be to place some tiny little obstacle in the theist's path. Do they climb over the obstacle, or does the obstacle end their investigation?

    Why should we do this test?

    Well, for one thing, theism may be important to the theist. It may form an important part of his identity. Maybe they couldn't handle not having The Answer to reassure them that they have some idea what life and reality is all about. Maybe they can't handle simply not knowing. Maybe we shouldn't rush right in to taking theism away from them just because they casually wondered if that is possible. Before we proceed to demolish theism, maybe we should see how serious they are.

    More to the point, if the theist doesn't sincerely wish to investigate the vulnerabilities of theism, such an investigation is quite likely to be a waste of time. You know how this works. We make a case against theism, and they push back, using the conversation as a mechanism for reinforcing the theist beliefs they already have. If we make an effective case against theism, the unserious theist is likely to get hysterical and the thread devolves in to a food fight. And if you and I have already had such a pointless conversation 10,000 times, that predictable process gets pretty boring pretty quick, right?

    The best test to see if the theist really wants to explore the vulnerability of theism is to simply observe whether they are already engaged in such an inquiry on their own. Are they already on the job? Or are they sitting back waiting for someone else to do the work so that they can repeat their memorized slogans.

    S has shown us what he really wants to do, and that is what he's doing in this thread. He wants to sell atheism, sell his imaginary cleverness, and get in to ego food fights. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that. Everyone should proceed with that agenda and enjoy the process.

    I'm just not interested, that's all. I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. For the moment I see no evidence that such a conversation is going to emerge here, so this is my last comment on the matter.
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    No, we've accomplished no such thing. Just because your demands haven't been met, it doesn't follow that I'm not interested in challenging atheism. — S

    So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you?
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    Your four instructions, or whatever you want to call them, haven't done a thing. We're no further towards any kind of meaningful or productive discussion. — S

    1) You've quoted the wrong instructions, illustrating that you were paying no attention when they were provided, even though you responded to the posts where they were provided.

    2) We have accomplished something meaningful and productive. We've discovered that you aren't actually interested in challenging atheism in the very same way you reasonably challenge theism. More specifically, you aren't actually interested in my assistance in such a process, or you would have done the tiny little job I gave you so that we could discover whether you are actually interested in such an analysis.

    What you want to do is what you're currently doing. You want to have an entertaining ego contest flapdoodle. Ok, this is a Internuts forum, so go for it. If you'd like me to call you name I suppose I could do that much so as to advance your REAL agenda.
  • Pascal's Wager
    'Do you renounce Satan?'
    to which the Irishman replied
    'This is no time to be making enemies.'     — andrewk

    :smile: :smile:
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    Several people here hold the view that philosophical arguments about the existence of God are pointless because they don't convince very many people. — PossibleAaran

    Such arguments could be useful if they reveal to us that nobody can prove anything on either side. If we used such debates to discover that we are ignorant, and then we continued from there to look for ways to put this abundant resource to good use, that would be constructive. But of course, this rarely happens.
  • Why shouldn't a cause happen after the event?
    Perhaps this is helpful...

    I watched a documentary which explained that time runs at different speeds at different locations. Not a theory, proven fact.

    Apparently matters effects time. A large body like a planet creates small but measurable differences in the rate at which time unfolds. So for instance time runs at a different rate at sea level than it does at the top of a mountain (farther from the center of the Earth). GPS satellites have to take this factor in to account or the data they produce would be way off.

    On human scale the time rate difference is so small that it's not noticed. This is a good example of how phenomena can be seen inaccurately if one doesn't have sufficient perspective.
  • Re: Kavanaugh and Ford
    However, it is true that some people really excel at being full of crap. :smile:

    The biggest meeting we ever had was covered by a national TV show. So naturally, everybody wanted to be part of that and we had a big crowd. This sheriff from a neighboring county somehow wound up on stage and gave a fire breathing table pounding speech in support of the cause. He was spouting fire and brimstone like a Biblical prophet. Very impressive. All filmed by the national TV show.

    I'd never met this sheriff because he was from out of our county. But I thought to myself, "This sheriff is an important new asset to our cause, I need to see how we can work together."

    So I approach him in the parking lot after the meeting and introduce myself as the organizer of the meeting. He looks me straight in the eye at close range and tells me to, "Get #$%% lost", and then turns his back on me and stomps away.

    Darn, where are those TV cameras when you really need'em? :smile:
  • Re: Kavanaugh and Ford
    Once upon a time I too was cynical about politicians. And then I got involved in politics to a limited degree as a public safety activist. My job was to organize public meetings that would draw media coverage so that the message would be spread to a wider audience etc.

    Here's how it works in the real world. 99% of those who attended the meetings would shake their fist at the politicians and demand that "Somebody needs to do something about this!" But that somebody was never the speaker (except in a small number of cases). That somebody was almost always somebody else, anybody other than the person making the big speech from the audience.

    We had something for everyone to do, obtain signatures on a petition which was designed to change the state constitution. We had a petition table out in front of various stores most weekends, anybody could come and help. Few did.

    What I learned from this experience is that anybody who gets elected to even local political positions soon becomes realistic about the "full of crap" nature of the public. The public shouts their full of crap slogans at the politicians and the politicians politely return more full of crap back to the audience. Once a lot of crap has been exchanged, and everybody goes home, nothing having been accomplished. If the media is present the full of crap goes full volume, because everybody likes to be on TV.

    Almost all of us are full of crap on almost all issues, and some of us wind up running for office so that we can get paid to be full of crap. It's the human condition. Don't expect a fix any time soon.
  • My Kind Of Atheism
    If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. — Jake
Home » Jake