:up:

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
— Gregory A

this has to be a troll. Best left alone. — Wayfarer

You'd think so. But I've heard this kind of incoherent, quasi-libertarian shit from some apologists in recent times. Next comment is usually a connection between Communism and atheism, along with a conspiracy to deprive people of liberty, along with their faith.

I'm a theist but to be honest don't give a fuck about them gods. — EugeneW

I think of you more as an eccentric, based on your entertaining responses.

The atheist believes in the fairy tale that no gods exist. So it's a belief. Do they have demonstrate of any of this? I think not. — EugeneW

No, again you are wrong. :wink: The atheist says they have no reason to believe there are gods. They do not necessarily say there are no gods. I don't believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster for the same reason. I don't say they do not exist I say I have seen no reason to think they are real. Big difference.

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesn't exist? Ill just use that one. — DingoJones

Exactly. :up:

Atheism is a belief, a fairy tale, a myth — EugeneW

Wrong. :wink:

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. A responsible contemporary atheist is more likely to say - 'I am not convinced that god/s exist.' For the same reason that a Christian does not believe in Zeus, Allah, Ganesh, Ahura Mazda, Thoth, Krishna, whichever.

Theism deals with reality, with the beings that live in an eternal parallel world, who, by ingenious design or accidentally, created spacetime in its eternity and infinity, the basic stuff in it, and the laws according to which it behaves. — EugeneW

Demonstrate any of this? I thought not..

All moral theories yield apodictically correct answers for the ones holding them. — EugeneW

Do you mean people assume their answers/worldviews are correct or that everyone's individual truth is correct?

1.When faced with conflict and loss, people should choose the least damaging option.

2.The losses from war outweigh other peaceful solutions such as negotiation and political means.

3. When faced with conflict and loss, war is not the least costly option.

4. Unless it is unavoidable, If something causes harm and damage to people, it is unjust.

5. The war is avoidable.

6. The war causes harm and damage to people.

Conclusion: Therefore, a war is unjust. — Howard

Seems a bit of a messy argument. I don't have a strong view on this topic, but this seems somewhat naïve to my eye. Perhaps defining what a war is might be useful too.

Let's just take a few premises at random.

1.When faced with conflict and loss, people should choose the least damaging option. — Howard

How do you know what the least damaging option is? How do you not know that a small war in 2022 might prevent a much larger, more lethal war in 2024 saving millions of lives?

2. Peaceful solutions like negotiation or politics do not always work. Can you prove they do? Could we have negotiated with Hitler? Could the holocaust have been prevented by just sitting down and having a diplomatic chat with the Nazi's?

4. Does not make sense logically. Something causing harm and damage to people is not necessarily unjust. It might be regrettable, but unjust? Are cars unjust? Is Coke unjust?

5. The war is avoidable. Really? Which war is this? You could argue that most things in theory are avoidable, except death and taxes. But in practice this is just a statement that requires evidence to back it up. If Russia attacked London would war be avoidable?

P: God exists
P2: God probably exist
E1: the fine tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single universe hypothesis — KingOfTheSouthBay

Huh? A pretty messy syllogism. Nether premise 1 or 2 can be established. 3 does not follow from 1 or 2 and you have introduced a new item (atheism) which does not appear in 1 or 2 and therefore should not be included in a conclusion.

The other problem is that any fine tuning argument can also be used to support the idea that we are living in a curated simulation designed by an alien race. Given that there is increasing documented evidence of alien visits and technology on earth, this scenario seems slightly more plausible and does not need to make appeals to the supernatural. :wink:

Suffering, in some sense, is the purest form of truth. Even happiness can be faked. — Jonah Wong

Huh? Both happiness and suffering can be faked. Suffering especially because it is so often seen as a symbol of authenticity and worthiness. Sounds to me more like you have particular fondness or bias for suffering as a sign of integrity. That is common with some philosophically inclined folk and pessimists who often assume happiness is either inappropriate or delusional while suffering is genuine. :wink: Of course Christians have fetishized and made a cult of suffering for centuries, so in Western culture suffering is synonymous with sanctification.

Western culture has made the mistake of glorifying comfort. — Jonah Wong

No, capitalism, marketing and advertising have done this. What's left of culture after this onslaught is incoherent and broken.

If God ended suffering, humans would not know what it means to be separated from Him.
If humans did not know what it means to be separated from God, they would not know that they need to be rescued.
If humans did not know they needed to be rescued, they would have no reason to cooperate with God.
Suffering is necessary for humans to cooperate with God. — Jonah Wong

This sounds like a twisted way of thinking and a good example of how a Christian might work really hard to overlook the fact that god (based on the stories and what we see in nature) is an abject cunt who treats creation with disrespect and malevolence.

However, the point is, despite human effort, suffering is inevitable: and our mission on an individual level ought not to be to suffer as little as possible, but instead to choose to suffer in the hope that it develops character and brings us closer to God. — Jonah Wong

The thing is, this is exactly the kind of thinking that I heard in Baptist church sermons in the 1970's and 80's and is a common Christian refrain. Suffering is a form of blessing that makes us better people.

:up:

I enjoy reading these debates. @Philosophim is like a calmer Garrett Travers.

What was it Nietzsche said - 'If you believe in grammar, you're a theist." The possibility of us making meaning and having reliable cognitive facilities may be just as 'miraculous' as the abstract, seemingly transcendental status of math.

I think Tom Storm's second possibility, that there is no ultimate truth, is probably correct. — T Clark

And if you think ultimate truth is elusive, try finding a plumber on the weekend.

There is very good evidence, I might say. We understand most parts of the universe, so why not the fundaments? What we will never understand is where the fundaments themselves come from. And that's where God comes walking in. — EugeneW

:lol:

If you don't make this assumption you will never hit rock bottom — EugeneW

Exactly - which is why I don't make it. This seems to be a simple fallacy from personal incredulity or an appeal to common sense.

There is no good evidence that humans will understand ultimate truth or that ultimate truth is even a thing. It might be argued that we've simply inferred this foundational concept from the limitations of human understanding.

It's a proof of the gap argument. The assumption it can be closed is more reasonable than that it can't be closed. — EugeneW

An 'assumption' as you say which is an unnecessary one. Plus there's the problem with the premises I mentioned.

But I enjoy these games sometimes so keep them coming. :up:

1. For any possible limit, there’s a possible external explanation
2. Explanations aren’t entirely included in that which they explain
3. Having limits is a limit
4. Therefore, there is a possible explanation of having limits
5. The only possible explanation of having limits must be in terms of something without limits
6. Therefore, it’s possible that something has no limits
7. Whatever has no limits is of supreme nature
8. Therefore, it is possible that there’s a supreme being
9. A supreme being is either impossible or necessary
10. A supreme being is not impossible.
11. Therefore, a supreme being is necessary — tryhard

There's a modest trick being played here with the word 'supreme'.

7 - Whatever has no limits is of supreme nature. No - you could equally say is of 'unknown nature'.

Supreme is here in order to lead to supreme being. It's a conceit of linguistic prestidigitation.

I don't think so. No 2 is an assumption. 'Gap' is a metaphor - 'closing it' is another own. What we might be dealing with is a kind of information humans can't fathom.
3 doesn't follow from 2 (even if you grant 2 as possible). Potentially 'a gap can be closed' without us understanding how it works. 4 is just a claim (something William Lane Craig might assert).

Seems a long way to present a woo of the gaps argument. :razz:

I've met many theists over the years who are idealists. They don't believe in matter. Rather like the good Bish Berkeley, they are monists.

There is almost no useful information about Jesus as a real person which could furnish us with evidence to build this kind of argument.

The gospels were written many years, sometimes decades after the claimed events by anonymous sources. Once oral traditions, the accounts come to us as copies of translations of copies of translations. The New Testament is essentially Jesus fan fiction.

1. Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or lord
2. Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic
3. Therefore, Jesus must be lord — tryhard

Perhaps -

1. Jesus is a character in an old book of collected myths.
2. Jesus may have been based on someone who lived but this is uncertain
3. Therefore, we can't say anything substantive about Jesus as a historic figure.

So what we come back to is not argument as such but the presuppositions which inform the argument. I regard the gospel stories as a set of manufactured myths, perhaps based on a real person. Lewis seems to regard the gospels as fact.

And what implications does your stance have here for the possibility of philosophically approaching the topic? — baker

Well mainly this - if this is what you consider to be a philosophical approach -

The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.) — baker

- the idea that it 'cannot actually make one happy' is not really a defensible posture. It might have been closer to being trivially true if you phrased this like so - 'doing things that one finds pleasurable may not make one happy.' However, from what I've seen, it's a hell of a good start.

God is an all-loving being and people believe that God loves everyone on an equal level. We have come to this conclusion because we know that God has to love everyone according to the Christian bible — stressyandmessy

Not sure what kind of Christian theology you dig - there are so many versions - forget that an old book says a thing, a quick look around at nature says to me God is a cunt. Having favourites is the least of its deficiencies. :wink:

My experience is that when I am calm the mind is not "racing". For me it is the difference between a raging torrent and a gently meandering stream. But there's nothing to say we are all exactly the same. — Janus

Interesting. I rarely have racing thoughts. Only when stressed. I can sit still and barely have anything going on thought wise - generally I visualize a line across a grey horizon and that's all I see or think of. I never worked on this it just came to me.

Pascal’s wager is flawed because there are more options than believing in the Christian God there are also other religions that we would have to take into account. But the greatest flaw is that the logic is built on fear. The possibility of going to hell incites people to believe in God it is all fear-based. — stressyandmessy

I think you nailed it for the most part.

No one can choose to believe in something, you either are convinced or you are not convinced.

Running with this kind of narrative any god/s who run a mafia boss style protection racket - 'believe and you will be saved' - are worthy of scorn and shunning, surely?

I'm an atheist, and I can't make enough sense of the concept of God to motivate myself to even think "yeah, I should belief." Pascal may talk about infinite gain and infinite loss, but it's all so abstract and alien to me that I just can't feel the loss, not even — Dawnstorm

I think the idea of god/s are incoherent too. Above and beyond all the arguments in both directions, I lack a sensus divinitatis so belief is not really possible in my case.

Someone claiming that the ultimate truth is organisms being machines programmed to pass on genes or memes has a loose screw somewhere in his machinery. Comparable to God psychotic schizo manias. — EugeneW

Not at all - perhaps you don't understand his book.

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

It is an incoherent position like blaming people yet claiming we have no freewill. — Andrew4Handel

No, it's a romantic position. It reminds me of the famous quote by Pablo Casals talking about life. "The situation is hopeless - we must take the next step."

I think Dawkins altruism phobia exists because of his desire to have a purely robotic, mechanical universe and to endorse the worst form of natural selection and ubermensch. Maybe he will post on here and enlighten us. — Andrew4Handel

Dawkins is an altruist - he does not take the facts of nature as an ought only as an is.

:razz: :up:

Vague references and a lack of evidence will convince no one. — Philosophim

Well, clearly that's inaccurate. The world is made up of beliefs without evidence.

Yep - it would be a rash person who argues that there is a moral code embedded in nature. However, we can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' - so just because nature is like this doesn't mean we can't work towards positive change (for humans at least) - which we have done in so many ways over time.

He left and seems to have changed his mind about being a member. I don't know why.

Isn't that the same? If the evidence is not reliable, is it good evidence then? — EugeneW

Not to me, but I probably wasn't very clear there. The claim 'there is no evidence for god' is false. It's important to recognise any evidence which is provided, it's a matter then of assessing how convincing the evidence is.

Then what's the evidence? A personal experience? God talking to us in our mind? What's your measure of evidence? Someone saying he/she has seen them? — EugeneW

I think the question for atheism is not the lack of evidence for god/s so much as the reliability of the evidence provided. Unfortunately personal accounts of religious experience offer very little to others who haven't had this experience and/or doubt its veracity. Religious experiences also cancel each other out - the Muslim, the Christian, the Hindu all have 'unique' experiences that to them 'prove' the authenticity of their version of god/s and how we should to live. It doesn't get much more problematic than constructing certainty out of something so evanescent.

Since there is no evidence of a universal mind, then it is false. — Philosophim

As @Wayfarer will tell you, there are philosophers and scientists who would say there is no evidence of physicalism. I suspect both world views in the end come down to a kind of faith.

"Everything is all in the mind, there is no physical world." Of course, just because I can propose something that would potentially show it to be false, it does not mean it IS false. As it is clear that everything is not in the mind, and there is a world outside of our thoughts, this claim against physicalism which could show it to be false, is false itself. — Philosophim

Not really. Many forms of idealism argue for a universal mind (essentially a primitive instinctive consciousness) which holds object permanence and provides us a shared reality independent of our minds. Humans are dissociated alters of the Great Mind - that kind of thing.

I have a theory: Morality is, I believe, an unsolvable puzzle and God knows, very well, that humans will never get to the bottom of what good and evil are. Hence, he puts down one condition for citizenship in his kingdom of heaven: be moral, avoid immorality. — Agent Smith

For me this kind of thinking is an unnecessary complication. I've often thought morality is fairly simple. Morality is created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of social order. This is why morality varies across times and cultures - there are variations in what order looks like.

I have no interest in what a god's silly plans and egomaniacal thinking might be. The taboos around 'good' and 'evil' are simply ways to control people's behaviour by appealing to some kind of transcendent foundation which can't be argued with or even understood. Good and evil are poetic terms which have no specific meaning and are generally applied according to an individual's or a culture's value system.

There’s something missing from it, though. — Wayfarer

The Inquisition?

Fortunately, in fact, Western "culture and philosophy" has been predominantly anti-foundationalist since the late 1500s CE (re: nominalism Copernicus/Galilleo, secularism, empiricism, Wallace/Darwin, pragmatism ...)
— 180 Proof

I don't know what that means. — T Clark

I think @180 Proof is referring to the ongoing Enlightenment project of human knowledge which has incrementally dismantled the notion of god/s and the usefulness of religious models as a foundation for all human thought - also the unravelling of Greek models of absolute reality such as Platonism.

No, no such opposition. The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.) — baker

I've known too many people who are, for want of a better term, 'happy' doing things they find pleasurable to agree with this in its entirety. I think it's true that some people find that do not attain happiness this way, but there are some people who are always unhappy. In my view, a person is more likely to find happiness doing what they enjoy than doing what they hate doing. This is certainly my personal experience. The term 'happiness' is a problem I think because it sounds a bit trivial and Californian to me. 'Contentment' may be a better word and preferable from where I sit.

:up:

Propaganda is just spin or lies designed to influence an audience - it might be for politics or for a religion. It need not involve nationalism. It's closely related to marketing. We can't stop people lying on behalf of a cause or product. Society is built on this fact. But perhaps we can try to make people more discerning.

Why are paradoxes/contradictions (so) important? — Agent Smith

Not sure this is relevant but I generally accept that humans are clever animals who use language to help manage their environment. As a consequence, meanings and worldviews are riddled with inconstancies and subversions, some of them more striking than others. When I encounter a paradox it tends to remind me of the poetic, imprecise nature of language and the manufactured character of human understanding.