You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested. — praxis

I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not.

I will prove that Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. — 3017amen

One of the associated belief systems that are unquestionably not logical is Marxism. It has long been demonstrated to be inconsistent, ambiguous, and nonsensical. And it has failed every single time it was put into practice.

If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not. — Fooloso4

Large projects -- whether it's the power or transportation infrastructure or going to war -- cannot be worked on if people are merely self-governing. It's in the nature of such large projects that they require a certain type of hierarchical organization in order to be carried out. Modern life is based around such large projects. There's a limit to how much technological and logistic complexity self-governing people can carry out. A generous estimate seems to be a Stone Age lifestyle.

I agree. This is an issue that came up in the thread on individualism.

I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not. — Fooloso4

The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. Also, Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. Religious life doesn't require moral development at all, in fact it purposefully suppresses it, because moral development leads to independence, and independences leads to loss of control. The religious person is granted higher moral status for merely being part of the tribe.

Someone mentioned a Pew Research survey earlier in the topic that showed how some people who did not identify as religious nevertheless held some religious views. Of course the inverse of that must also be true and those who identify as religious hold secular views. I recently thought it remarkable when some religious conservatives condemned the current Pope for supporting climate change efforts. A case of the secular tribal identity Trumping the religious tribal identity.

The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. — praxis

An interesting claim. What evidence is this based on?

Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. — praxis

Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher.

Religious life doesn't require moral development at all ... — praxis

In so far as you associate moral development with independence I agree. Religion can, however, promote behavior that is consistent with the political and social order of the ruler. Independence may be desirable in a democracy but not so much in other regimes.

All of this is off topic though. Perhaps a topic for a new threat.

Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward.
— praxis

Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher. — Fooloso4

The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim.

It has long been demonstrated to be inconsistent, ambiguous, and nonsensical. And it has failed every single time it was put into practice. — Apollodorus

What nonsense. When was Marxism ever tried? And it seems to me there are at least a few countries in the world to which are attributed Marxist roots. Gee, if only I could remember what they're called....

Uh, and btw, do you have any support for your claims that is not itself nonsense?

And whatever substance lies in your clams of inconsistency, ambiguity, and nonsense, first, that's not what people want, so I question, "long been demonstrated," and second, the same criticisms can be leveled at just about any political system.

Maybe filter your "thinking" through a hankie?

The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim. — praxis

Yes. I agree. I have known many who hide behind a religious facade.

Once again I will prove that your Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. To that end, here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?

Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. — 3017amen

↪3017amen No, but that will suffice for ... weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend. — 180 Proof

To further clarify the object of our dispute, consider:

For clarity's sake, designating which deities are at issue in 'for / against arguments' or (mere) avowals, I've compiled an inventory of the most common deity-TYPES (i.e. conceptions of divinity):

(A) Creator Only (e.g. deism; pan-en-deism)

(B) Intervener Only (e.g. animism; paganism)

(C) both Creator and Intervener (e.g. poly/heno/mono-THEISM; pan-THEISM; pan-en-THEISM)

(D) neither Creator nor Intervener (e.g. a-cosmism, pan-deism)

By 'creator' I understand an entity that transcends its creation in logical anteriority and is ontological separate from its creation (whether it intervenes (immanently or transcendently) or does not intervene in its creation).

And by 'intervener' I understand an entity that causes changes in or to the (scientifically) observable, physical, world (i.e. nature) – independent of the entity's alleged provenance (i.e. whether natural or super-natural) – which are therefore also (scientifically) observable. E.g. "parting the Red Sea", "raising the dead", "curing incurable diseases via intercessionary prayer", "flooding the world", "creating the world c6000 years ago", "being on both sides in a co-religionists' sectarian / civil / holy war", etc... 

:point: To paraphrase your previous definition, for the sake of this argument, "Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of" (C) both Creator and Intervener deity (re: ... THEISM).

Is that acceptable to you, 3017amen?

Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism. — DingoJones

So not just disbelief but belief that theism is dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior.

Exactly, it’s not the theistic concepts per say because some of those are A) not original to that theism and B) are not in opposition to non-theists. (The golden rule for example)

And whatever substance lies in your clams of inconsistency, ambiguity, and nonsense, first, that's not what people want, so I question, "long been demonstrated," and second, the same criticisms can be leveled at just about any political system. — tim wood

Have you been living under a rock in China for the last 50 or so years?

"The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.[1] Andrew Kliman argues that since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it as well as the correction of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.[62]

Critics who have alleged that Marx has been proved internally inconsistent include former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such as Paul Sweezy,[63] Nobuo Okishio,[64] Ian Steedman,[65] John Roemer,[66] Gary Mongiovi[67] and David Laibman,[68] who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it in Capital.[69]

According to Leszek Kołakowski, the laws of dialectics at the very base of Marxism are fundamentally flawed: some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", yet others just "nonsense". Some Marxist "laws" are vague and can be interpreted differently, but these interpretations generally fall into one of the aforementioned categories of flaws as well.[82]"

Criticism of Marxism – Wikipedia

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

Thank you for the references. I don't question the claim that test-tube Marxism doesn't pass an academician's close scrutiny. I did and do question your claim that "it is unquestionably not logical" and "has been long demonstrated" & etc. And "has failed every single time." again & etc. Maybe you can define your way out of them, but then maybe you should have started with definitions or appropriate qualifications in the first place.

It's a question of your brain knowing what your fingers are typing, on the assumption that your brain can know. Which given a number of your posts seems a charitable assumption.

I don't question the claim that test-tube Marxism doesn't pass an academician's close scrutiny. — tim wood

Of course you're not questioning it but you're questioning it all the same. I would suggest you read the well-known scholarly criticism and then we can discuss. How about a thread on it?

"Criticism of Marxism (also known as Anti-Marxism) has come from various political ideologies and academic disciplines. This includes general criticism about a lack of internal consistency, criticism related to historical materialism, that it is a type of historical determinism, the necessity of suppression of individual rights, issues with the implementation of communism and economic issues such as the distortion or absence of price signals and reduced incentives. In addition, empirical and epistemological problems are frequently identified" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism

Plenty of interesting stuff to choose from.

I looked through the links, and I think that will work. For example, the links also talked about the Omni-3 stuff, which of course is illogical (in theory, transcends logic). Or even a cosmological God who is partially dependent on temporal Time yet somehow creates Time itself, etc... .

So, if you include the concept of the Omni-3 God as being part of your A-theist belief system, then sure, no exceptions taken.

I'm not going to show all my cards of course (and neither should you) but keep in mind, I'm a Christian Existentialist, so I will attack the most basic of belief systems, including yours. Whether its Time itself, or Omni-3 or whatever. The theme, as I said earlier, has to do with logic. And I will prove that your A-theism is not logical. But instead, is based on something else...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, philosophical, psychological, or existential phenomena, etc, etc....

In other words, and in that sense, the A-theist and the Fundy are no different.

Let me know

In other words, and in that sense, the A-theist and the Fundy are no different. — 3017amen

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they are different? I would prefer you reserve your answer for the debate - and it's gratifying, to me at least, to see the mutuality of spirit and interest in this debate.

I am eager to see the proposition that is agreed to as the text for the debate. Above I proposed this: Resolved, That atheism is not logical. For, 3017. Opposed, 180. But anything that is clear is imo good.

I will prove that your A-theism is not logical. But instead, is based on something else...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, philosophical, psychological, or existential phenomena, etc, etc.... — 3017amen

Very good. Have you got an Admin to set up our debate space and found a member to moderate the debate who's to your liking? Banno works for me. Who moderates (within reason!) is not by a deal breaker for me though. (Maybe we can briefly discuss in PMs members we each object to in this role?)

Since you will taking down "a-theism", I will present an argument for this moving target to begin the debate, right? And you will defeat my argument in turn? And so on for a limited(?) number of counters and then summations in a final post by each of us (apparently with you getting the last word :sweat: )?

Is that what you have in mind or something else?

Resolved, That atheism is not logical. For, 3017. Opposed, 180. — tim wood

This seems much clearer to me. What do you say, 3017amen?

A little atmosphere.

Since you will taking down "a-theism", I will present an argument for this moving target to begin the debate, right? And you will defeat my argument in turn? And so on for a limited(?) number of counters and then summations in a final post by each of us (apparently with you getting the last word :sweat: )?

Is that what you have in mind or something else? — 180 Proof

I could go either way, but since I challenged you, I'll go ahead and make my supposition clearer by making my case. Then you can poke holes in it.

I don't really care who gets the last word. I will tell you this though, if there is a lot of ad hominem like I've seen from you in the past regarding my posts, I'll interpret that as you throwing in the towel (and by default I'll win). Because seemingly you have no other arguments. And in that case, it would speak on its own.

As far as moderators, I'll monder that and look through some of the other debates and see how it was handled. To be brutally honest, this site has a bad reputation in that regard, so to find an objective party may be difficult...

to find an objective party may be difficult... — 3017amen

We don't need "objective", even neutral, just scrupulously FAIR. Any member with a reputation for fairness and/or the demonstrated maturity we can reasonably expect to be fair will suffice.

If we have someone moderate, it will his or her role to delete (or red flag) ad hominems, strawmen, and such as well as decide (by agreed on rules) who forfeits and thereby who prevails by forfeit. And, my friend, check Google & wiki: insults are fair game in debates but ad hominem fallacies are not. I suggest you learn the difference and stop whining that my insults have been ad hominems when they have not. Anyway, at any rate, insults are almost always bad form with audiences so I won't go for the cheap laughs just to score points. I take debates even more serious than I do free-for-all forum discussions. By all means though, you go first and give me the last word, sir. I'll gladly accomodate you. :up: :smirk:

to find an objective party may be difficult... — 3017amen

... if not impossible.

If we have someone moderate, it will his or her role to delete (or red flag) ad hominems, strawmen, and such as well as decide (by agreed on rules) who forfeits and thereby who prevails by forfeit. And, my friend, check Google & wiki: insults are fair game in debates but ad hominem fallacies are not. I suggest you learn the difference and stop whining that my insults have been ad hominems when they have not. Anyway, at any rate, insults are almost always bad form with audiences so I won't go for the cheap laughs just to score points. I take debates even more serious than I do free-for-all forum discussions. By all means though, you go first and give me the last word, sir. I'll gladly accomodate you. :up: :smirk: — 180 Proof

Let me first post here some important definitions. Then if we agree on any violation of them, what that violation means, so on and so forth. Again, I'll be brutally honest, Baden had deleted posts that were purely arbitrary based on his ego. He's dropped disparaging F-bombs, etc. etc.. . And if you need proof, I'll find them (unless of course he deleted them).

Let me just get the basic definitions of Straw man, either/or arguments, non sequitur's, etc out of the way first...I'll post in a bit...

All this is still germane to Einstein's observation of fanatical believers like you :razz:

Anyway, "sucker" you'll be going down in 3: “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can’t hit what your eyes can’t see.”

I just the love the emotional free for all idea 180, don't you pea-brain? LOL

"LOL" Okay, now what's your point?

I have no interest in moderating the debate. You can choose your mod. Now, just go post the proposal in the debate forum and stop babbling about it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/29/debate-proposals

Unless, of course, you have no intention of debating and this is just showboating.

Hey, how about staying out of this grown-up talk :razz:

You of all people, I wouldn't want to moderate because of your lack of biased restraint.
LOL

Sorry, dude, more than likely

this is just showboating. — Baden

Anyway, this thread seems to have veered off course. Let's see if Amen comes up with the goods in the appropriate location.