You need to consider the broader picture outside of, for example, the bubble of online forums. For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists. I mean, consider the one billion Chinese. Almost, everyone is an atheist. Do you think there's anything at all significant in that? — Baden

Great question. Let's talk about the Chinese culture.

Let's parse it one question at a time:

1. Would you like to live there? If not, why not?

Also, you're wrong about 'For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists."

It's all about religion for the Einsteinian fanatical atheist, like yourself. And that's simply because if there were no religion, there would be no a-theism. What's more, the connection to cognitive science is that which Einstein alluded to in that your "grudge" against organized religion is what's bringing you down.

Getting emotion out of the equation would bode well for the atheist. Try using pure reason :razz:

BTW, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one about atheism.

Ahhem...if you didn't give a shit you wouldn't have commented. Stereotypes are given for reasons. Are you too, an angry atheist?

the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. — 3017amen
I must concur.

"First, Admit You Are Angry

This may sound silly, but how many times have you met someone who clearly was angry, but who insisted he was not? For some reason, some people resist admitting to themselves that they are angry. This is not skillful. You can’t very well deal with something that you won’t admit is there. — Apollodorus

Yep. I agree that on the surface it might sound silly, but it's a reality for many. Cognitive science 101 says you can't fix the problem unless recognize you have one. Once again, it manifests in things like ad hominem, trolling, disparaging one's character, lack of mutual respect, so on and so forth. As the existentialist would say, nothing new under the sun there.

Buddhism teaches mindfulness. Being mindful of ourselves is part of that. When an unpleasant emotion or thought arises, do not suppress it, run away from it, or deny it. Instead, observe it and fully acknowledge it. Being deeply honest with yourself about yourself is essential to Buddhism. — Apollodorus

Yes. Early Greek philosophy endorsed the 'know thyself' mantra which has stood the test of time. One of the greatest gifts we can give to ourselves is to know thyself. Sure it's an ongoing effort, but so is all of life.

And it is funny you mentioned how effective it can be to control one's thoughts. In James' chapter on the Divided Self, the story of that angry person came to a victorious conclusion with him being able to positively control his thoughts about anger. Metaphorically, " The baby discovered it could walk. It would scorn to creep any longer. From the instance I realized these cancer spots of worry and anger were removable, they left me. With the discovery of their weakness, they were exorcised. From that time life has had an entirely different aspect."

In that story, it was a freeing and liberating experience.

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride — Apollodorus

Absolutely. Life is good!

Absolutely, agreed!!! :up:

The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions? — Apollodorus

Great question! I have many thoughts on the subject matter relative to cognitive science. But first let me ask, do you happen to have William James' book, Varieties of Religious Experience?

If so, the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. Specifically, a story on page 201... .

Anyway more to come...

Does philosophy include metaphysics, you think?

Alas, adding to our woes, Einstein didn't exercise the same logical rigor he did in physics and math when it came to religion. The world, especially his fellow scientists, would've never forgiven loose terminology in science but insofar as god is concerned, we let a lot of imprecise language slide. — TheMadFool

TMF!

Thank you for your contribution as always. Examples that would help to elucidate that subject matter?

Einstein claimed that fanatical atheists are unchained but still feeling the weight of the chains, like phantom limb syndrome or something, I suppose. Indeed nihilism might be thought of as a kind of religious phantom limb syndrome, where discomfort is experienced in the absence of the superpersonal. — praxis

Good point! What are your thoughts on nihilism, are there any good takeaways?

The problem is when atheism becomes a form of religion that seeks to impose its views on others, for example, as in communist countries like China. — Apollodorus

That's an excellent point. Generally speaking, exclusive of extremism and such, here in the states we are free to adopt and embrace Christian philosophy which in turn, arguably, helped make American society fluroush...in God we trust.

Of course there is a whole host of issues to unpack there as well, relative to violence against native Americans so on and so forth.

Again, to throw the baby out with the bathwater is alive and well in the Maslonian world of dichotomization :razz: That's part of the unsophisticated nature of the atheist mindset...

The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods and atheists are a minority in the world. I think this makes it legitimate to investigate the phenomenon of atheism in general and, especially, what motivates atheists to disbelieve and to adopt negative and aggressive attitudes or behaviors in their relations with believers. — Apollodorus

Yep. Well said. I would venture to guess Einstein would get that. Of course we can't forget the obvious. The so-called sin of pride, exaggerated self worth; it seems Einstein was not clouded by that mindset. He was humbled by the cosmological feeling...

Christianity borrowed so much from the ancient pagan philosophers — Ciceronianus the White

People things about there was a lot of borrowing Westerly Greek philosophy too... .

Do you claim that atheists reject the Golden Rule because it came to be adopted by Christians? — Ciceronianus the White

No I'm not. However that's an interesting thought. I think there may be some connection, or as Einstein suggested, a "grudge" against religion which in turn somehow does not allow them to accept those virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. Again they seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What do you think?

philosophical Revelation
— 3017amen

There is philosophy, usually defined as organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. And revelation, which isn't. What, then, is philosophical revelation? — tim wood

Thanks for the question. The phenomenon of Revelation can occur from a variety of sources and experiences. They range from the religious experience (William James, Jung, Maslow, etc..), ineffable experiences such as experiencing the phenomenon of music, to anything considered as a novel discovery relating to creativity (inventions, mathematical genius) and that whole cognitive process.

One thing that caught my eye is your supposition about philosophical subject matter. What is or what things are considered to be "determinate" subject matter?

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value [...] For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be… — 3017amen
I think this sounds very much like some of the points I was making on the other thread. The atheist can't know that there is no God. He can only think or believe so. This would seem to make atheists more agnostics than strict atheists. Many an atheist may say "I don't believe in God" and count themselves "atheists" but if you press them they are likely to admit that they can't be certain that there is no God. — Apollodorus

:up:

Indeed. Another interpretation of his quote is that a normal healthy (exclusive of extremism, fundamentalism, etc.) 'religiously enlightened' person, gets the benefits of philosophical Revelation. I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , by religious dogma and other obvious baby v. bathwater stuff :razz:

Did you find it interesting he used the term "super-personal value"?

That's hardly a peculiarly Christian rule. — Ciceronianus the White

"Regardless of the genesis of that trope, it was endorsed as a virtuous ideal for most humans to embrace or live by for ages. Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment."

One of the most famous statements made by Einstein on this topic is this: “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” — Ciceronianus the White

:up:

But, when you say that you think that he was probably an agnostic, you might be right, but even then that is trying to categorize him. — Jack Cummins

He definitely said he wasn't an Atheist, that we know. He was known to embrace pantheism. He of course talked about, and tried to describe his other observations, as you would say, in order to avoid having them fit into a box:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man"-- Albert Einstein

I'm not sure what you think are the "intrinsic or universally virtuous human believe and value systems" — Ciceronianus the White

Well there is a lot to unpack there. I'll start by saying there is a inconsistency in how an Atheist might consider the impact of Christian philosophy and wisdom associated with not only human nature, but in their own sense of self or Being. Consider the simple rule of treating others as you would like to be treated. Regardless of the genesis of that trope, it was endorsed as a virtuous ideal for most humans to embrace or live by for ages. Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment.

Or, take the Atheist who claims everything is life is logical. Not so. Their own consciousness cannot be explained much less described using logic; it transcends logic. And so does the concept of God. Another contradiction in their thinking.

Human sentience. Einstein discusses that seemingly quite a bit. Well...let's save that one for now... :razz:

No. You misunderstood. I said it was cool because you did some research and it still proved I was right, and you were wrong.
:razz:
Thanks!

Coolio!! I'll do a search to see if this subject matter has been covered and if not, I'll open up a thread on Albert!!

Although he certainly was not perfect, obviously he's widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time. Just about every physics article/book I read has his name dropped...

Hahahahahaha! Be well!

Another one bits the dust I see. Oh well, when you get the courage to make your case, I'll be waiting.

BTW, I can't resist, are you ashamed that you got Einstein wrong? Or was that another attempt at a red herring...or, wait, maybe you understand blowing smoke, lying, pretending, and Dennett's speedo's better :razz:

sure that Einstein was smart enough to distinguish between deafness and dissonance, and that he knew how to say what he meant. Try again? — praxis

He was smart enough to appreciate the Harmony in the universe. On the other hand, he believed the fanatical atheist, using your interpretation, would be considered a deaf mute :razz:

am I deaf to the music of the spheres? If so, does that mean the spheres only play Bible hymns? — praxis

As you may know, that was a metaphor from Einstein's appreciation of the harmony found in the universe. Much like those who believe abstract mathematics (a metaphysical language) has an independent existence of it's own, Einstein believed that music also had an independent existence that was discovered from time to time buy those who were seeking its truth.

Since music may be considered a universally understood, subjective-truth, it also seems sadly apparent that the fanatical atheist might consider that so-called harmony in the universe as sonic dissonance.

because it's you who closed the door with your broken record. — tim wood

Now what did I tell you about opening that door Tim... your hippo might come out !

:joke:

Daniel Dennett alone in a drawing room holding a candelabra. — praxis

Someone said he looks good in a speedo, but that's not my thing :joke:

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic.
— praxis

Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder? — 3017amen
Animals don’t have the capability to reason or assess according to strict rules of validity. In your case, who knows. — praxis

Sorry, I don't know what that means. You seem to be saying you and Daniel have a logical explanation for consciousness... .

Oh well, I hope at least you don't share in his so-called logical choice of sunbathing attire :razz:

you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist — 3017amen
Sure, what’s the worst they’ve done? I’m really asking because nothing terrible comes to mind. — praxis

Depends on the context. Generally speaking, extremism is usually not good. Otherwise, would you say a fanatical atheist is similar to a religious extremist or a fanatical fundamentalist?

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic. — praxis

Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder?

I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations.
— praxis

I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic
— praxis

Because you said the forgoing, in that you would ' take reason/science based fanatic'; was it unreasonable to conclude you were an atheist? — 3017amen
I’m not going to even dignify that with an answer, and in any case it doesn’t matter. — praxis

Ahhem. You are the one who brought it up sir. Are you saying it is unreasonable to conclude you are arguing for atheism? I don't get it. Here's the quote: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ― Albert Einstein

And you said, in paraphrase, you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist. So which is it my friend? Sorry but I'm calling you out on that :razz:

he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. — 3017amen
You contend that only a religion could inform him of that?
— praxis

The short answer to that short question is, I would contend that both science and religion are not mutually exclusive. — 3017amen
It feels like you’re being evasive. There’s no need for that, I’m totally harmless. Anyway, you mentioned consciousness transcending logic. Perhaps you could rephrase that because your meaning is unclear. Obviously consciousness doesn’t require logic, but I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say.

Planetary bodies emitting sound that we can hear isn’t a good example of a shared truth between science and religion. — praxis

I answered a short question with a short answer. What more do you want? Alternatively, you said consciousness doesn't require logic, what does that mean? In other words, are you referring to explaining the nature of consciousness itself, or in the description of its function(s)? Once we identify exactly what we're referring to there, only then can we have meaningful discussion.

What is your point? — tim wood

Let me repeat third time:

Do you want to defend Atheism based on cosmology, cognitive science (consciousness) , phenomenology, metaphysics, or... ? Let me know which means/method approach you want to argue for Atheism.

Alternatively, in Christianity, the historical Jesus existed. So if that's your hippo, then the hippo existed.

I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations. — praxis

I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic — praxis

Because you said the forgoing, in that you would ' take reason/science based fanatic'; was it unreasonable to conclude you were an atheist?

he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. — 3017amen
You contend that only a religion could inform him of that? — praxis

The short answer to that short question is, I would contend that both science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Why does it need defending? — tim wood

Interesting question. The answer lies somewhere in your participation in this thread, right? Let's parse why an 'atheist hopes there is no God', meaning, is the idea of 'hope' itself the reason you are participating? I mean, otherwise, as I've said, if you are advancing a position on no God, you have to explain your position, no?

Nor does anyone argue for atheism — tim wood

Sure they do. It's done all the time. That's why I asked you about which method of discourse you prefer... . BTW, any thoughts on that?

A-theism is simply a reasoned conclusion based on evidence, or more exactly the lack of evidence, compounded by in the case of Christianity the assertion that no such evidence is possible. — tim wood

As I've stated, Jesus existed.

In short, if you base your faith on the claim that God exists, then you are not a Christian. — tim wood

I'm not quite following you there, sorry.

if it's the Christian God, is said to be indemonstrable and inconceivable. — tim wood

Interesting concepts. Let's start with this question. In your mind, what is considered inconceivable? For instance, does that have something to do with being logically impossible?

Btw, were I to insist to you that there is a hippopotamus in my closet, would you suppose me mad, or that I had a hippopotamus (in a tutu) in my closet? — tim wood

Great question. Does that mean it's logically impossible for the hippo to be in your closet?

Alternatively, I insist that Jesus existed in history.

And how am I in a position of authority, and how or why would that position be untenable?
— tim wood
Any positive statements that posits no-God puts you in that position. — 3017amenThe question is/was how or why?
— tim wood
The how, is by advancing a proposition that a God does not exist. The why, would likely related to human sentient existence. You know, cognitive science kinds of stuff — 3017amenIt seems either you are unwilling or unable to answer a simple question. Do you understand the words? — tim wood

I've answered your question twice. You asked: "And how am I in a position of authority, and how or why would that position be untenable?"

And I answered with: The how, is by advancing a proposition that a God does not exist. The why, would likely relate to human sentient existence. You know, cognitive science kinds of stuff. (Which btw, is that your preferred method of discourse to prove no God-cognitive science?)

Let me know.

Despite his genius I guess Albert didn’t know that sound can’t travel in a vacuum. And if it’s a choice between fanatics, I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic over the ‘I believe whatever sky father (ordinary guy wearing robes and funny hat) tells me’ fanatic. — praxis

Despite him not being a philosopher, probably much like you, he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. However, his common sense observations speaks volumes to the cognitive dysfunction/dissonance, as we've seen on this site with the many trolling atheists... :razz:

Are you referring to Bayesian statistics and probability logic​? — 3017amenNo.
And who reasons that God does not exist?
— tim wood An Atheist. — 3017amenAnd just pointed out to you that an atheist uses reason. For example, I can reason that no such hippo occupies my closet, but that not conclusive. On the other hand, I can use reason and by that be informed that looking in the closet might be a reasonable test. I then look, and form a conclusion based on evidence. See the difference? Aristotle, apparently, reasoned similarly that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Fortunately a general improvement in reasoning and understanding reasoning has occurred since then. — tim wood

Well, there's a lot to unpack there. Do you want to defend Atheism based on cosmology, cognitive science (consciousness) , phenomenology, metaphysics, or... ? Let me know which means/method approach you want to argue for Atheism.

Alternatively, in Christianity, the historical Jesus existed, so if that's your hippo, then the hippo existed.

People look for evidence
— tim wood
What's considered appropriate evidence? — 3017amenEvidence that comports with the conclusions drawn. — tim wood

Is that through induction or deduction or something else... ?

then whatever your faith, you still need to come to an understanding of what faith is. — tim wood

Faith is irrelevant in our particular discussion for the time being. We are trying to discuss your no EOG using logic.

A belief in the existence of things that lack that quality is a kind of madness, or even madness itself. And some good is done by the mad, but also much harm. — tim wood

I'm not sure what that means. I can only speculate that there is some sort of grudge or axe to grind there. Alternatively, are you suggesting throwing out the baby with the bathwater? And if so, how does that relate to other dichotomous belief or value systems that humans hold as being true to them?

And how am I in a position of authority, and how or why would that position be untenable?
— tim wood
Any positive statements that posits no-God puts you in that position. — 3017amenThe question is/was how or why? — tim wood

The how, is by advancing a proposition that a God does not exist. The why, would likely related to human sentient existence. You know, cognitive science kinds of stuff :joke:

If I happen to not believe there is a hippopotamus wearing a tutu in my closet, does that mean I have a belief or value system that puts me in a precarious position if I attempt to defend it? Or that puts me in an untenable position of authority? — tim wood

Are you referring to Bayesian statistics and probability logic​?

And who reasons that God does not exist? — tim wood

An Atheist.

People look for evidence — tim wood

What's considered appropriate evidence?

Christian understandings of God preclude finding any, and conclude that there is no evidence. — tim wood

Jesus existed.

And how am I in a position of authority, and how or why would that position be untenable? — tim wood

Any positive statements that posits no-God puts you in that position.

Now, if you as a matter of faith believe things that I do not believe, ultimately, so what? If, on the other hand, you're quite sure I should believe those things, then why, or how, should I? You're welcome to stay over there with your beliefs - and your own rules of discourse and discussion. But why would you expect those to work in any environment where those have been well-tested and found empty, deficient, offensive, and counter-productive?
If you have faith, and you take the matters of that faith to be real in ways and senses that they are not, then you're crazy. Whether or not a problem a different question, but the ground fertile for toxicity. — tim wood

Is it possible to re-word that, not exactly sure what you're trying to articulate there.

What exactly do you mean by "the philosophical reasoning associated with a God's existence"? — tim wood

In our context, it means that for the Atheist, if he/she reasons that God does not exist (philosophical discourse) then he/she puts themselves in a precarious position of defending their belief system (or value system). In other words, it puts them in an untenable position of authority.

From what I've seen on this site, that is one of many reasons why they get so agitated/emotional. Simply put, they troll threads; huff and puff and blow smoke about religious dogma with little substance. Then they get mad when asked existential or metaphysical questions (because they can't answer them).

Almost as a kind of political statement with an underlying axe to grind. You know, much like what Einstein observed... :snicker: As inspired by the book of Ecclesiastes (Existentialism), that human behavior is really nothing new under the sun :yikes:

Actually, it occurred to me that some of them are agnostic or even Christians or whatever. And that perhaps, they are just gaslighting people because they are weak in faith or want to understand apologetic's stuff...

We do not start new threads, true. But it's not due to fear. It is due to our foreknowledge of our complete inability to get through to you, because you surround your mind with a senseless, reasonless, stupid religiosity. — god must be atheist

Ahh...aaahhh...okay?

Think of it this way, those of you who continue to insist God does not exist (which is false in the face of Christianity), should start threads, rather than troll honest threads that want to explore the philosophical reasoning associated with a God's existence.

By virtue of your trolling (180, Tim wood, etc..) you have effectly put yourself in a precarious and untenable position of having to defend your belief system (or value system)... . Nobody asked you to troll. Otherwise, much like the other fanatical atheists on this site you would be considered a person who instigates conflict, hostility, and uses inflammatory messages to provoke emotional responses out of people, disrupting otherwise civil discussion.

In this instance, a civil discussion or debate would require you or anyone who is not comfortable with their belief system to, shall we say, put up or shut up. The atheist's on this site tend to just blow smoke, and get all emotional and defensive, not sure why...

In my experience, I've seen many fanatical atheists embrace the meme that says if you can't attack the issues, you attack the person. In any event, I'll be happy to debate any atheist one-on-one, on this site, arguing any of the EOG topics out there... .

Thanks

you're not even smart enough, — 180 Proof

There's another example of your trolling threads, just to seemingly disparage people, and otherwise add more ad hominem.

We can't help but wonder why you keep doing this. Why are you so emotionally distraught or defensive about your Atheism? (Was Einstein right?)

You will get an answer (one of many answers of course) to your question very shortly. Be patient. I'll give you a hint: the limbic system :grin:

We won't let 180 troll your thread much longer. Just watch how he'll eventually fade away...

If only you would / could properly use "ad hominem" in a sentence — 180 Proof

Thanks! What method then would better capture your personal attack on people?

Then after you answer that question, can you logically defend your belief system?

your idiocy is on full display with every one of your posts — 180 Proof

There's another example of your trolling threads, just to seemingly disparage people, and otherwise add more ad hominem.

We can't help but wonder why you keep doing this. Why are you so emotionally distraught or defensive about your Atheism? (Was Einstein right?)

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you resentful about something? Just an observation, you use a lot of ad hominem and other derogatory language when it comes to defending your Atheism.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ― Albert Einstein

Hey angry atheist!

Are you trolling people's threads again?

Yep. I keep telling Mr. Wood to not be so afraid of himself :rofl:

I don't know why he doesn't celebrate. Maybe he's repressed :joke:

Let's start another thread if you want. — Apollodorus

Indeed. I've challenged many atheists on this site to start threads and they were all afraid to do so. I'm not sure why these discussions are so emotionally charged for them.

I've used Kantian pure reason with them and it just gets them agitated. Once again, the atheist still cannot explain their own conscious existence because it's logically impossible. So how can they explain no EOG :cool: