Atheism can just be a way to shift from eternal , changeless verities to an attitude that is more fluid, creative and adaptive to change. In that way it wards off nihilism by embracing new values and meanings. In fact it can thrive on approaching a world that is overflowing with constantly changing value, rather than relying on one static truth. — Joshs

That's a nice way of putting it and has generally been my take. Some theists consider atheism/nihilism to be a black hole of dread and an invitation to the diabolical. I guess they don't trust people to establish new values and new ways of seeing without a supervisory deity or cosmic consciousness.

I understand where you are coming from. I guess Dawkins and Hitchens operate as polemicists so philosophical soundness or coherence isn't their thing. I can't remember them using the argument as proof against God per say; just ammunition against the notion of the benevolent Christian God.

I think that's useful. I was wondering when someone might raise this.

My version of atheism generally concerned itself with a theistic position that would seek to change politics and the laws (in its favor) or work towards imposing a theocracy. Paul Tillich's notion of theism (for instance), as far as I can tell, doesn't concern me.

This is very nice. I forgot about Shelly's polemic. Last time I looked at this was the mid 1980's...

Yes, but they have been used to argue against the existence of God. Which is what this thread is about. — elucid

Really? I have never heard people use these logical conundrums as arguments against God's existence. That seems silly. What they use them for is disrupting people's idea of omnibenevolence or omnipotence. But I already addressed this in my response. How do you address this?

This is not an argument that God doesn't exist. This is an argument that God is not good. — T Clark

I wasn't proposing it was an argument against God's existence, just a paradox/contradiction.

They are not arguments against God as such, they are paradoxes. Many Christians, for instance, maintain that God is maximally powerful but he cannot do the logically incomprehensible. God cannot make bachelors married men, for example.

My first question at religious education class when I was 8 - If God is good and ever forgiving why is there a hell?

Check out Rorty. If you are referring to things like the logical axioms, etc, sure.

Perhaps he did make a mess of it - or we made a mess of Nietzsche. I'm not sure, but there is a mess, right?

But saying we cannot access truth is still positing the myth of the Gods eye view.

How does Rory justify ideas.

Why the allergy to the word truth? — Protagoras

You need to dig deeper. It is not truth that is the problem - hence Rorty's view that justification is achievable in a range of areas. He is saying The Truth (as in a foundational truth) is a myth. As per God or transcendent purpose. However we can know if an idea works or not and can clarify language.

I am not a Rorty scholar so someone else can take it further if they wish. Rorty often seems to be disliked for his 'postmodern relativism'.

None of these guys has escaped the bottle of philosophy or has a genuine criterion for truth. — Protagoras

Rorty says that we know how to justify ideas, we just don't know anything about capital T truth - this being a remnant of Greek philosophy and monotheism. We are clever animals for whom language is a tool to manage our environment. We cannot access The Truth.

The empirical observation is parallel to the method of La Rochefoucauld, who noticed that many expressions of selflessness were actually outbreaks of self-love. — Valentinus

There's no question that this is true. But this unfortunate fact is misused by people constantly to drown out the idea that there may also be (as there should be) genuine compassion or empathy for people who are struggling to survive.

It's nothing to do with conflating belief and knowledge. Have you heard reasons to accept the proposition that God does not exist? Do believe there is no God? — Janus

I've already stated my belief. Putting it in the negative makes no discernable difference so it is true that I believe there is no God.

You say you don't believe in a God, but you do you disbelieve in a God? You say you are not convinced a God exists, but are you convinced a God does not exist?

The important difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the former is convinced that a God does not exist. — Janus

I have heard no reasons to accept the proposition that a God exists. So I don't believe in God. But I cannot say that I know God does not exist. Show me how belief and knowledge can't be separate things.

Of course real compassion is a tremendous virtue.

Nietzsche was talking about compassion being in reality a form of asserting power over the recipient.

However,he didn't discount a different type of compassion between elites born of strength.

Nietzsches ideas on normal compassion havent had any overall effect in the real world.

Folks will always use it to make the world run smoother and to keep bonds between people.

But genuine compassion is very rare. — Protagoras

There are many readings of Nietzsche; who knows?

Compassion is not so unusual - the version I prefer is that experienced quietly by ordinary folk as they go about their daily business, never having heard of Nietzsche.

I'm saying that a lot of what is called compassion and those go around talking about it and signalling its values are hypocrites. — Protagoras

I think that's true but it has little bearing on whether compassion is valuable or not. Fake anything or hypocrisy is bad. Genuine compassion is not bad. Was N talking about fake compassion? I don't think so. Josh's may have an interesting perspective on this.

I can't imagine looking around the world and determining that we need less compassion.

What do you mean by ‘fueled’? As in ‘Einstein’s craving for fame fueled his discovery of relativity’? Or as in ‘I find many of Nietzsche’s ideas to be so superficial and unimpressive that I can reduce them to an arbitrary and simplistic causal motive’? — Joshs

I mean the former - fueled as in 'helped to bring about'. I don't dismiss his ideas. And he has great one liners that get you thinking.

I am bewildered by the fact that on many philosophy channels on the internet and YouTube there seems to be more material on Nietzsche than almost any other thinker and he's had an enormous influence also on writers, artists and psychology. — Ross Campbell

One reason is that he often wrote and riffed like a stand up comedian and has always been popular with a younger demographic. I find his condemnation of compassion unhelpful. When you consider Nietzsche's physical frailty and lack of success with women, it is hard not to speculate that resentment fueled many of his ideas.

If there is no God, everything is permitted. — Dostoevsky

Pedant corner. This wording does not appear in Dostoevsky; the actual quote:

He laughed. 'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?' 'Didn't you know?' he said laughing, 'a clever man can do what he likes,' he said. '

Zizek actually improved the accuracy of the 'quote' - "If there is a god then anything is permitted."

E.g., burning witches, heretics, unfaithful wives, non-virgin daughters who marry, people who blaspheme.

We are left with three possible forms of considered belief:
Committing to a belief that god exists
Committing to a belief that god does not exist
Not committing to either belief

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

Nice. The important qualifier for me is 'considered belief'. I have had more than a few people insist there is another option - 'don't care'. But we wouldn't call that 'considered'. These folk are generally nascent atheists.

I got nothing...

As I said on the atheism thread, I always thought that you could be an agnostic atheist, in as much as atheism refers to your belief and agnosticism to knowledge.

I don't believe in a God, but I do not know that god doesn't exist.

Before I gave much thought to the matter of God, I had an intuition that God was a non-starter for me. I don't seem to need a ground of all being. The idea of a god seems contradictory and incoherent. It had no explanatory power that could not also be provided by aliens (as a for instance). Why is there something rather than nothing? Aliens. Who made the earth? Aliens. Why does there seem to be order in nature? Aliens put it there. Etc.

You are either convinced of something or you are not. I am not convinced a God exists. That's the belief part taken care of for me.

But what about knowledge? I can't imagine even hypothetically how a god or gods could be known either in principle or in practice. Are the arguments I use to support my lack of belief anything like knowing something to be not the case?

P.S. I think many so-called agnostics are actually atheists in as much as they live as atheists (without a belief in a God) they just use the word agnostic because in some contexts it may be a more socially acceptable (softer) label.

Banno I'd be interested in sharpening my understanding of knowledge verse belief here. I've always argued that atheism goes to one's belief and agnosticism goes towards knowledge. Hence the idea of an agnostic atheists. You'd have some useful views on this.

As memory serves, Obama said if there was just one thing he would take from Australia it would be compulsory voting.

Disgraceful.

Do you think Australians are especially apathetic when it comes to politics?

Yes. I agree. I also think if you take care of financial, security, and opportunity issues, the rest will take care of itself. — T Clark

I believe that's correct.

That's so crazy it might just work!

I agree. Scotty will probably get in again. Electoral apathy, the Murdoch press and Labor's lack of skill will do the job. Unless there is something new in the mix. Albo is pretty unexciting.

BTW this is in regards to what someone else had said. — skyblack

No kidding.

I guess "mental illness" is not the best name after all. — Manuel

Generally it's called an illness if it is causing significant distress or functional impairment or the person is a danger to self or others. Being 'mad' is not enough.

Existence itself buddy where did we come from…poof pops the universe out of nowhere don’t you find it interesting. — Deus

Questions are fine. It's the answers that are often the problem. Hence God of the Gaps.

I'm pretty happy with 'I don't know' for most of those currently unanswerable questions. Was there a starting point? Maybe not. We don't know. Was there nothing before something? We are not certain. We can't readily define what nothing is. Do all things have a cause? Maybe not. We can't say for certain.

To say 'God did it' has no explanatory power. It's using a mystery to explain a mystery. Might as well say the Magic Man did it. Or aliens...

Are you a deist or a theist?

the proof is in the pudding. — Deus

Problem with that is the pudding is used to prove either argument.

I don't think this trend is isolated to this subject. — Cheshire

I agree.

A lot of the past has gone with the winds of time — Gregory

You said it, Greg.

Oops. Rookie mistake. Second time this month.

I find it interesting how some threads start with 'what do you think?' then in response proceed to be quite dogmatic, as if the mind is already closed. As you say, some god threads don't seem to be about acquiring new information, just playing tennis against what is presumably a familiar 'opponent'.

Mental illnesses can manifest quite differently in each person. It may not be that some can manage it better - it is also about what level of intensity the illness comes with, what symptoms you get, your childhood stability, your personal qualities, plus the individual's environment. Without a supportive family or friendship network, it can be especially hard.

If a schizophrenic is not totally dysfunctional, they can be fantastic artists. And so on. — Manuel

Just take care not to confuse outward success with what it is like to be someone. Many a successful person with a mental health issue was terrifically unhappy and some famous ones committed suicide regardless, of genius and acclaim.

If they weren't obsessed on sports, they'd be obsessed with something else, sometimes leading to dangerous behavior. — Manuel

Yep, this is our old friend sublimation. Just hope people are channeling their obsessions into a redeemable activity.

Although the way I would phrase more or less the same idea is that “framing” something makes it art: presenting it to an audience for their consideration, making it the content of a communicative act. — Pfhorrest

That's much better - I was too hasty.

:up: