hat we have evolved to do such-and-such does nto siffice to shoe that such-and-such is right. — Banno

I'm inclined to do the such-and-such shoe shuffle to Dinah Washington singing Mad about the Boy...

Yeah but when you say this presumably you have a preconceived idea of the god to which you are rejecting?
Like would it not be more accurate to say “I have no belief in one version of a god” - your version, the one you’re rejecting.

But that’s one person - you. Or a group of people - Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. Not everyone’s god because to different people they have different ideas of the heavily loaded term.

Like the god I believe in is nature/ the universe . And by your statement “I have no belief in god” then logically you either a). Aren’t aware of my god/ don’t associate it the same way I do or b). You don’t believe in nature/the universe.

If anything that makes you agnostic not atheist.
You can be like “why do you call it god and not just the pursuit of natural sciences like everyone else? — Benj96

As I wrote to you an another thread. There are many forms of atheism, the best in my view argue that there is no reason to accept the proposition that a deity exists. Incidentally atheism and agnosticism address two different categories. The atheism part addresses the belief component the agnostic addresses the knowledge component. This is why there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. I would put myself into this category. I can't know if there is or is not a god (just as I can't know if there are or are not aliens) but I don't have good reason to believe in one.

It's pretty simple. You can't choose your beliefs. Most agnostics in my view are atheists. They may say they don't know but technically they do not have a belief in any kind of god. All they are addressing with agnosticism is the knowledge component.

I feel science as wonderful and powerful a tool as it is, is failing to address concepts that are very important to me — Benj96

Yes, well your feelings are a separate matter, aren't they? I hear you but this is subjective.

One problem with religions and theism is the lack of moral foundation. As you have probably noticed even within one religious tradition morality is whatever a believer or a particular church community subjectively determines it to be.

Christians lie and cheat and murder and end up in jail. I have worked with prisoners for many years so I have seen this in person. But more than this, Christians are all over the shop when it comes to morality. Some believe women should just be housewives, some think they should be scientists and lawyers and the breadwinner. Some hate gays, others are gay friendly. Some believe in capital punishment, others fight against it. Some think being wealthy is God's reward, others think Jesus demands personal poverty and sacrifice.

In other words morality is based on the personal preferences of a believer or what their pastor tells them it is (this year). Religion/theism does not provide any certainty, only the illusion of certainty.

I think atheism is a false concept on a rational basis. Because there is an issue with the official definition in the dictionary which renders the term “atheist” pretty useless. — Benj96

Words do not have meaning, they have usage. Dictionaries are pretty limited. Most atheists I know would say they have not heard a good reason to accept the proposition that a God of any kind exists. Once they hear one they can accept, they may change their mind.

In order to reject a god you must have a preconceived idea of what that god is. — Benj96

I think that's a bit concrete. Incidentally Christians are atheists too; about all the other God claims and the many God's they have not heard of. How can they commit to one narrow version when they don't know all of them? An atheist would argue that they have yet to hear of any God they believe in. As an atheist I would say, keep them coming and I will consider them. But it is safe to say I have no reason to accept the proposition that a god exists.

But there are hundreds of religions. — Benj96

Why limit yourself to this? There are thousands of versions just of Christianity. They hold different views on morality and on what God wants and who God is. You really can't say there is such a thing as Christianity. What there is are a range of beliefs under a common title. Some Christians try to kill each other. Some are pro abortion. Some think abortion is evil. Some are members of the KKK, some follow Martin Luther King. Some believe the Bible is literally true others think it is just an allegory. These are different faiths. Possibly different religions.

n essence if you aren’t god yourself (omniscient and all knowing) and keeping it very quiet, then you are agnostic (not all knowing/don’t know) but you can’t be atheist (refuse to know) towards all religions because it’s just a blind rejection of any possible description of reality which is absurd. Atheism is ignorance, Agnosticism is the process of inquiry and theism is well, I’m agnostic so I don’t know what theism is. Theism is I guess the end of our pursuit to understand the entirety of the universe - the answer to all of our questions. — Benj96

You have a concrete version of atheism. Did you grow up in a religious household? An atheist doesn't generally 'refuse to know' that seems to be a clumsy and fallacious statement. Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

There are many forms of atheism, the best in my view argue that there is no reason to accept the proposition that a deity exists. Incidentally atheism and agnosticism address two different categories. The atheism part addresses the belief component the agnostic addresses the knowledge component. This is why there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. I would put myself into this category. I can't know if there is or is not a god (just as I can't know if there are or are not aliens) but I don't have good reason to believe in one. It's pretty simple. You can't choose your beliefs. Most agnostics in my view are atheists. They may say they don't know but technically they do not have a belief in any kind of god. All they are addressing with agnosticism is the knowledge component.

By suppressing an idea that has a negative connotation for you, you may end up convincing yourself that the thing represented by that idea doesn't exist or shouldn't exist. People say all the time things like "this can't be true" even when it is. — Apollodorus

I notice you use the words 'you may' to indicate that this is not certain. I agree with you this is far from certain. When people say things like 'this can't be true' they usually believe it first on order to bury it with a denial. If you were to argue that atheists actually believe in God but deny his nature because of fear or hatred, you would have a more traditional apologist's argument with a psychological component. Anyway this is getting silly since it doesn't actually matter. Thank you for the argument.

Question: why the existence of the absurd or the concept of absurdity then? Why would anything irrational exist at all? Or do you believe that everything fundamentally reduces to something rational and explicable. — Benj96

I make no claims about absolute truth. But, for the most part, I privilege reason. The response to the conundrum is simply what some Christian theologians and philosophers say when this chestnut is put to them. I have no belief in God or omnipotence so the question isn't asked in my world.

I think what the op was explaining is that omnipotence is dependent on/ spread through time.
The existence of time means pure potency is impossibly within temporality:

power = work done/time taken to do it. The greatest level of power in such a case is a state of affairs where work done = infinite, and time = zero (instantaneous). — Benj96

I guess the OP could have meant that. I responded to the bit I could follow and which interested me. I apologise if I missed the point.

I think it will help to read more philosophy on these issues as there is a huge amount of sophisticated literature addressing these issues.

his simple proposition easily resolves the so-called "paradox of omnipotence" asking "if God is omnipotent, then can he create a stone such that he cannot destroy?" Knowing about stretching of God's omnipotence in time, it becomes quite obvious that the question itself is incorrect. "What do you mean he can't?" "When won't he be able to?" "How long will not able?" "Never?" Then the answer: "Yes, he can. It will take about an eternity." — unDEFER

The paradox more usually is - "Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" The common answer is that God can't do that which is a logical absurdity. You don't need impossible stones to address this paradox, God also can't make 3 + 3 = 8. Omnipotence does not mean God can subvert logic. Many theists would argue that logic emanates from God's nature, therefore God can't do that which is not part of his nature.

I think a harder question to solve is why does God allow small children to die of starvation and cancer in the millions every year? Why does he allow the suffering of these innocents? Much more interesting than the lifting of a stone, huh?

People change from one religion or political system to another all the time. And that involves choice. — Apollodorus

People change views when they think they have compelling new information, not because they 'choose' to swap views. Belief is not like a TV remote control with the selection of 'atheism' or 'theism' as a form of channel hopping.

People stop believing in God when they have reasons that convince them and visa versa. 'Fear' obviously can't work as a reason for not believing in something because you have to believe in God in order to fear it.

But the question was whether atheists hope that there is no God. You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it — Apollodorus

I would think it is impossible to disbelief something by hoping it is not so. You are either convinced something is true or you are not convinced. This is one of the reasons why Pascal's Wager is silly. You can't choose who you love, or what you believe.

You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it. — Apollodorus

This one is interesting. You could also not want something be there because you hate it, or are angry with it, or you think it is terribly sad, or you think it is defective.

[ The idea that atheists are afraid is a threadbare and spurious argument. But if you don't believe in the existence of something, how can you be scared of it? Surely only a believer believes out of fear? Additionally, can a person choose their belief? You are either convinced something is the case or you are not. If fear is your reason for non-belief, then you are choosing a position - to me this seems untenable.

Just keep it simple. Someone points out in the context of recent events that black lives matter. Someone else says "all lives matter". Did they react? — Banno

I'd say that's a reactionary statement. I don't think we need Marxism to help explain this...

I believe that's a big element in atheism. Atheists are afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves hence they hope there isn't. — Apollodorus

It's a pretty old argument and I don't think it is any more true than another old argument - that theists believe in God because they are afraid of death. It's curious to me that both sides in the theism debate seems to think the same sorts of things about the opposing viewpoint. That is it is the product of immaturity and a lack of being fully human.

I've heard no reason to consider reincarnation true, nor do I much care, but what difference do you suppose it is meant to make to a life lived? Why should we care?

:cheer:

I was thinking along these lines earlier - it's an argument of infinite regress. If he were alive, George Carlin could perhaps do something with this.

:up:

Much of today’s modern art challenges this artificiality. We judge ‘ugliness’ by our own limited capacity for imagination or understanding. — Possibility

Agree, I think that's the essence of the old fellow's message.

Of course we seem to judge all things by our limited capacity for imagination and understanding.

I'm so used to 'satire' being limp and real life being satirical that I can't tell any more.

There'a fine line between provocation and satire.

don't think that you have considered well enough as to what I mean about Marxist-Leninist ideology. — thewonder

That may well be true. I have no doubt that there are and were people who explore Marxist ideology with the fanatical determination of a scholastic theologian and can creatively connect it to a range of situations. I have known a number of defectors/refugees from Soviet countries and discussed this kind of thing with them at length.

In the way back when RevLeft was still operative, nearly every conversation seemed to require a rather lengthy set of deliberations and references from marxists.org . I remember getting into a conversation with a Hoxhasit, I think, Marxist-Leninist, and Soviet apologist about Leon Trotsky's alleged Fascist collaboration. — thewonder

That is interesting. I think when theory and history get combined in this way discussions become labyrinthine and speculative and too much of a pissing competition for those involved. It's just about point scoring and skewing history, this was or that. I generally avoid politics on line as it usually breaks down into internecine tribalism with a slender evidence base. Boring.

know

The same goes for religion. When we say that religion is merely "made up", we miss the bigger picture. Nothing and everything is made up. You don't just walk around come up with the idea of Jesus. It is as well based on the observations and the nature. It's as well based on our behaviour as humans. It is science. — Anna893

Sorry Anna, I don't think I agree with your thesis. Sure, everything may well be made up (although who knows, variations of Platonic forms may be a thing) but ideas have different degrees of usefulness. I'm happy with that as a criterion of value in a life that is over very quickly.

We don't know" is compatible with both. It could be the case that we don't know and there IS or there ISN'T a guiding force. — khaled

For sure. I am in the 'no' camp as I have yet to hear a reason in defence of a guiding force that works for me. But more properly I don't and can't know. I suspect people often choose their answers for aesthetic reasons. In other words, the world seems more beautiful if there is a guiding force. In so many arguments against physicalists or atheists, the critique is actually about the view's ostensible ugliness, its randomness, emptiness, inadequateness, stuntedness. By contrast, higher purpose belief fans self-describe with words like union, integration, balance, transcendence, meaning. There's almost a virtue signalling element to it.

Do you think there is one? If so, what is it? — khaled

You're right logically speaking, but there's a third option: we don't know. Can we ever hope to know? Now that's a question.

Yeah, I can see it now. When he said it it was just one of those lines, you know?

Well It is a philosphy forum. Philosophers do aspire to something more. — Wayfarer

I wondered if you were going to say something like that. Fair enough. But I think perhaps philosophy goes wrong when it gets too ambitious. It's complicated enough trying to understand life in the trenches.

Sure, science is 'testable hypotheses' and 'falsifiable' and the like but some elements of the scientific worldview are not so easily amenable to that kind of pragmatism - for instance the idea that life arises by chance, that, as Gould said, 'any replay of the tape of life would lead evolution down a pathway radically different from the road actually taken.' We'll never know, of course, but it practically amounts to an article of faith. — Wayfarer

All well established arguments and I don't disagree too much. A lot depends on what questions you are wanting answers to.

I am not especially interested in the origins of life or higher consciousness. I'm more concerned that we improve the quality of our questions about such matters.

The answers I want are ones which will get me through the quotidian. Science is the only thing I find works and I spent years associating with Buddhists, Gnostics, yoga practitioners, theosophists, spiritualists - you name it. Most of them as wracked by anxiety, ambition, neurosis and substance use as anyone else. One person did die of a treatable cancer because they said alternative treatments and meditation would cure them. Some science would have saved them. But I don't wish to dwell on this.

I think there's a valid criticism of the role that science assumes as 'arbiter of what is real'. That used to be assumed by religion — Wayfarer

You make that sound like a bad thing. Science versus religions is a no brainer. But I see your deeper point. Don't think I have ever said science deals in truth. Just stuff we can use. You might consider this lazy but I'm not looking to explain or understand Reality, just my reality. I am not so sure it is wise of anyone to try to do anything more.

But surely there is ethical value in finding beauty in people, and in producing things that people will find beautiful—is there not? I don’t mean to say that beauty is as logical as right and wrong may be—only that it is ultimately subservient to ethical concerns in this way. — Adam Hilstad

A wise old man told me once that aging and maturity involved understanding that there is great beauty in ugliness. He went on to explain that what is readily understood as beauty is often juvenile and specious. I often ponder this.

Amongst people who identify as Left, I would maintain (but only based on my experience) that there are few who would know Karl Marx from Groucho Marx. Well, that's probably too strong, but you get my point. Theory has not often been the strong point of practicing 'socialists'. It's more of a 'vibe thing', a generic, 'let's redistribute wealth and get rid of oligarchs'. In my conversations with student Leftists and community activists I have met over 30 years, only one or two has ever read more than a few pages of Marx. The strength of Marxism is as a brand and like most brands it's all perception, not theory. The university types may quote some Frankfurt School stuff, or mention Marx more often and with some superficial insight but I doubt many have a robust understanding of Marxism or the history of revolutions. In my experience Marxism is just a word some people use to describe some forms of Left wing activism with a revolutionary flavor.

it is clear that religion is the search for a supernatural concept — Anna893

I don't think it seeks out something supernatural but it does often settle on this. What exactly a supernatural concept is is unclear but I guess you mean outside of physics and the scientific method. Where and when this is applied is also unclear. In the West, few people today would ascribe a lighting storm to an angry God, but some might.

Of course first we might think that with our current knowladge we have made it as far as we could and adapted individuals to society and life, but is it really right to believe this is the one advanced way? Why are we so sure that the answers of science are valid, when validation doesn't last forever? — Anna893

Not many people would say we have made it. Science is a method, not Truth. It provides the best model we have, based on the available evidence. It's useful and has practical application, so for that reason we can claim it is the best we can do (for now) and that is no trivial matter. This may not appeal to the kind of person who wants that transcendent and immutable foundation - which some of us don't accept as a thing.

Science is infinitely superior to superstition or magic if you want to treat illness or deal with nature or create technology. It's faintly amusing when people say science is primitive nonsense as they use their mobile phones, watch Netflix, catch planes, wear contact lenses and take insulin for diabetes, etc. Science is not magic and it is limited and it does change and improve over time, but the germ theory of disease did a lot more for human health than prayer.

deleted

Now it has become what any four year-old might smear on a canvass, or a grown man throw against a wall. — Todd Martin

That has been a common criticism of 'contemporary' art for decades and it is easy to see why. A Rodin taken out of a gallery and placed in a city car park is still a Rodin. Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII taken from a museum and placed in a city car park is just a pile of bricks. The context plays a role.

Nevertheless for me art can express what it is to be human and that may not always be beautiful or easy. But I like my art to have vitality and sometimes be confronting. Perhaps it would be a mistake to make too many demands on what art 'should' be.

The question of what counts as art is not all that important. Anything put on display in a certain context can be called 'art'. The more salient question is deciding if it's any good.

I've never taken this idea seriously before. I guess it depends on whether you think there are any responsibilities around aesthetics. I don't accept notions of beauty as being pivotal to this discussion, so that might be why I have never considered this.

All that needs to be done is for the people to decide what qualities, abilities, and virtues the philosopher-kings should possess and for them to be educated and trained accordingly. — Apollodorus

I hear you but right there is the crux to all our problems.

I ask a wreath which will not crush my head.
And there is no hurry about it;
I shall have, doubtless, a boom after my funeral,
Seeing that long standing increases all things
regardless of quality.

Ezra Pound

Were Liberal democracy to genuinely be what people who care about liberty, equality, and all that could believe that it is, I would see no reason to be an Anarchist. — thewonder

Agree. And if we think democracy is a hard thing to get right - how about philosopher-kings? How on earth would the quality of this be determined and how would we avoid getting a well-read 'Putin' rather than a Socrates? It seems to me that what is true for Presidents might be true for philosopher-kings - the kinds of people who want to be one should be instantly dismissed from the list of contenders. And the kinds of people who might be great, would never accept the position.

Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

And it couldn't have hurt that Socrates was over 70. All 'death prep' aside, I wonder how he would have taken the news at 35...

I agree. The interesting thing about a novelist as a philosopher is that you need to do some extra work to discern the thought and positions. The potential for a misread is high. When characters speak are we to assume they are the novelist's views? This is not always clear. It seems to me that novels used to convey philosophical positions are often somewhat akin to propaganda in that they are a kind of case study contrived to drive home a point about human behavior.

Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin

There are not many who would claim that an animal has the same status as a human, partly on a basis of human exceptionalism, but also from the belief that humans, on account of greater neurological complexity, experience (emotional) suffering to a greater level than animals. Including a greater experience of loss and tragedy for the family and friends of the human who dies.

Do you think that it is possible to separate Dostoevsky's Philosophy from its very religious nature? — Bertoldo

Back to your question. I think Dostoyevsky is safely categorized as a Christian writer from the Orthodox theological tradition. As far as I know he does not do anything radical with theological ideas - unlike say Nikos Kazantzakis, writing much later. You would need to identify what you would call Dostoyevsky's philosophy before you could determine how wise it would be to separate it from its Christian origin.

What I am saying is that people have to cope with the loss of the Christian symbolic register. I am not saying that Christianity has transcendent virtues. I'm saying that it is no longer possible to believe in divine order to the universe and that people must both discover and create meaning otherwise. As I interpret Jean-Paul Sartre, or even Albert Camus, I think that the sentiment is quite similar. — thewonder

I think this argument is largely accurate and quite familiar. I would simply make the point that history is cruelty, bloodshed and exploitation. It's hard to prove how the death of a metanarrative has made anything worse.

Yeah all those rotten hospital systems and universities they set up. Along with all of those dreadful charitable organisations that went around indiscriminately helping people. — Wayfarer

A common response. Well a couple of things. I also wrote 'I don't say Christianity is all bad'. I offer the negatives as a sober reminder that Christianity is not necessarily a good thing, as those who oppose secularism are pone to arguing.

That said, note also how much abuse and trauma was committed (and keeps being done) in the name of Christian charity. In my work with people who have addictions and various forms of post trauma, most of them have experienced abuse at the hands of a cleric or at the hands of a church operated home or orphanage. Plenty of literature available on the dangers of Christian charity.

Of course some Christian work has been quite wonderful too. But when the theists say that without God there will be blood on the streets, that presupposes no blood was spilt by churches and church run activities.