I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not. — Ram

Can you provide similar evidence for the existence of God as can be provided for the existence of Alaska? Yes or no?

If no, then drop the false analogy. (And be honest, it's a no).

Russell is above them but I still think his arguments are weak. — Ram

Speaking of weak arguments...

I only have two problems with religion --- 1. when a religious belief is used to deny a scientific theory, and 2. when religion is used as a basis for abusing people who fall outside the religion, or even a hierarchy of abuse within the religious group. Sometimes religion is used to fight the good fight, like it was used during the civil rights movement in the USA. Other times, it is used to oppress others and persecute those with new ideas, especially in science, in which case religion is a bad thing.

Based on the historical evidence I don't see all religions falling under some universal banner of either good or bad, and evaluate each religious belief separately. Like, if someone believes that God created white people to rule over colored people, I would consider such beliefs immoral and absurd. But, if someone believes that giving to the poor is a good thing, then I would support such a belief.

As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists. — Michael Ossipoff

As opposed to what? If you're going to be like that, then how about you put forward your understanding of God, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it, thereby showing that there are atheists - aggressive atheists even (who here would deny my aggression?) - that aren't tied down to this single straw man notion of God which you've flung in their direction.

If you actually stepped back from your usual schtick of characterising atheists in the worst possible light, and you took a moment to stop and listen to what atheists, such as I, are actually saying, then you might just find that you're mistaken. For example, I've explicitly acknowledged in another discussion on this forum that the concept of God is one of the most variable concepts out there, which is quite the opposite of what you suggest. And that, I think, may have even occurred in the baited 'Magical Sky Daddy' discussion. But then, if this God-as-metaphor contains nothing inherently theistic, then the question you must answer is why should the atheist disbelieve it in the first place? (E.g. God is love, or God is the world). They would be atheists no less. And that would just be empty wordplay.

I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.

Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability to simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.
— praxis

It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different. — Harry Hindu

I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown.

As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links: — Harry Hindu

Indeed, check out this method: Hallucinogenic Drug Psilocybin Eases Existential Anxiety in People With Life-Threatening Cancer

It shouldn't be scary to discover that meaning is within your own power to create and not in the hands of someone else. It is empowering. — Harry Hindu

Maybe not just empowering but increasingly imperative.

when a religious belief is used to deny a scientific theory — LD Saunders

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

But then the Catholics went off on a crusade against scientists that claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun and was not the immovable center of the universe, as well as against evolution.

But then the Catholics went off on a crusade against scientists that claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun and was not the immovable center of the universe, as well as against evolution — LD Saunders

true - add it to a very long list of stuff they got wrong. Which goes alongside another long list of stuff they got right.

I'm not sure what the Catholics got right. The Inquisition? Burning of witches and stealing their property? Being against birth-control?

Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful. — praxis

That doesn't necessarily make it good. Is the religion of the cave prisoners, the primary meaning of which stems from shadows on the cave wall, good? Good compared to what? That's the question. Good compared to the same situation, but without shadows on the wall? That's understandable. Good compared to breaking free and seeing the world as it is? Much less understandable. Who needs cave shadows when there's a whole world full of natural wonder to explore? Suddenly the significance of cave shadows and the lives of the prisoners seems extraordinarily impoverished.

Ambrose Bierce satirically wrote:


Elsewhere written:

You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution? — Michael Ossipoff

And you aren't being very clear with us about your notion of God. You've taken the liberty of assigning a God to "Aggressive Atheists", without saying anything at all, in contrast, about your own notion of God. Perhaps we should assign you one. Reading between the lines, presumably your notion of God is your One of Many True Gods that you timidly and quietly believe in believing in, and is always the God of the Moderate Biblical Non-Literalists. Tell us more. Why should an atheist invest significant time and effort into what, I suspect, amounts to speculation or wordplay? Do you think that you've got a notion which doesn't amount to speculation or wordplay? If so, I'd be interested to hear it.

I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc.
— praxis

If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia. — Jake

We're not rational beings, Jake. This is not how the world works. We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.

For example, I eat pretty well, say fit and maintain an ideal weight, and consequently I'm in good health. Do overweight, unfit and unhealthy people look at me, desire health, and adopt a similar lifestyle to mine? That would be the rational thing to do, but unfortunately we have many ingrained and learned habits to contend with.

If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc. — Jake

This is incorrect, measurable progress has been achieved in most areas.

Also, it's not clear what you mean when you refer to "thought." Much of what goes on in the human mind is subconscious.

Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.

Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality. — Jake

Being a social species it makes sense that we might have an instinctual aversion to being alone, isolated, vulnerable, and divided from reality. For the vast majority of our evolutionary history, expulsion from the tribe meant almost certain death. It's also hard to pass on genes in isolation.

It feels meaningful to be part of something larger than yourself, particularly with people who share your goals and values. Right? What better expression of this natural desire than a religion?

Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division. — Jake

All mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' yet not all mammals appear to suffer the consequences you seem to be suggesting. How do you explain that?

I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser

But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is. The willful ignorance and weak rationalisations stand out like a sore thumb to those with the ability to see them for what they are, and some prime examples here in this discussion have been the comparisons that have been made between God and wind or Alaska. These kinds of arguments are typical of the mindlessness I spoke of. They simply cannot have thought them through well, otherwise they'd be aware of the blinding faults and would avoid them like the plague. I've heard and seen these arguments before, most disgustingly in religious propaganda aimed at converting children and simpletons. Occasionally it comes through my door.

People who don't believe tend to say things like this, genuinely unaware of the number of unjustified beliefs they themselves hold. — Pattern-chaser

If I put forward an argument as piss poor as the examples that I've pointed to, then I would want it to be subjected to scrutiny. I would much rather that then a mild mannered pussyfooting around it, leaving me none the wiser or with a lingering attachment. Maybe think some more about what would be the greater disservice here.

If one believes in a particular religion, one respects its teachings. From the outside, we could reasonably describe this [as] being "placed on a pedestal", but showing respect is what we all do toward things we, er, respect. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, I understand that. Of course I do. But, notably, that says nothing about whether the respect is deserved. If it requires a mindless or uncritical devotion; a kind of blocking out or sheepish submission; or leaps of logic and faith; then it automatically goes down in my estimation.

If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... — Pattern-chaser

What ad hominem attacks? The real ad hominem is your tone policing. Why must my talk of mindlessness be censored? If mindlessness is what it is, then mindlessness is what I'll call it. What else would you call what I've described? Flawless reasoning? A painstaking commitment to impartial rational enquiry? I don't think so. It looks very much to me like the work of a novice with an agenda. It looks like there's certainly an element of mindless commitment behind the scenes.

Harry Hindu quoted me:

”He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.” — Michael Ossipoff

...and replied:
.
All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.

.
No, You’re the one making a sweeping blanket-claim. If you claim that there’s no evidence for any of the diverse variety of beliefs that you’re referring to, then you need to establish that for every one of those many diverse beliefs.
.
If I assert that there’s evidence for one of them, then it would be necessary for me to demonstrate that there’s evidence for one of them. But I’m not making an assertion or a claim.
.
But you are.
.

”The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof

.
No, it doesn’t necessarily. In physics there can be a big accumulation of evidence that gives a high probability that a theory is correct.
.

, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god".

.
Presumably Harry is saying that there’s no such evidence that can’t be explained by physical science. If that’s what Harry is trying to say, then he’s again repeating his unsupported sweeping blanket claim.
.
As for the word “God”, I’ve been saying that I don’t usually use that word unless I’m replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like Harry.
.

”If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?” — Michael Ossipoff
It is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims.

Wrong. Not all Theists have approached Harry.
.
But maybe Harry’s changing his story, and now he’s only referring to the beliefs of those relatively few Theists who have approached Harry. That would be an improvement, for which I would commend Harry. …for backing away from his previous claim that the beliefs of all Theists are without evidence.
.
So now, it’s only necessary for Harry to show that beliefs of those Theists in that much more limited set are unfounded. He’d now only have to specify who has approached him, and specifically what their particular beliefs or claims are, and demonstrating that each is without evidence. (…and of course that would include actually demonstrating that each of their beliefs and claims are without evidence.)
.
But that would definitely be more do-able.
.

I don't go around announcing my atheism.

.
:D
.

”You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.
“If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.

.
Then refer to a particular claimer who hasn’t given a definition (…and no, I’m not making a claim or assertion, other than about your vagueness). Or refer to a specific definition, and show that the claim based on that definition is without evidence.
.
In other words, don’t be so sloppy-vague.

.

The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method

.
No, I say that the scientific method is valid and useful in the physical sciences. What I criticized is the pseudoscientific method, wherein pseudoscientists who don’t know what science is try to apply science outside its self-defined, self-circumscribed, range of applicability.
.

…and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science.

.
Even in describable metaphysics, there are plenty of things that are outside of “physical” science. (Why are we putting “physical” in quotes. Is physical science not really physical?)
.

Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?

.
Science seeks to describe and explain the relations among the things and events in this physical universe. That’s all.
.
Harry is expressing a belief that if there’s God, then God must be an element of the physical world.
.
But is Harry sure that Theists are saying that? Or is that just Harry’s religion.

.

Everything is natural.

.
Of course, if you define “natural” so broadly that it includes pavement and industrial air-pollution.
.
I doubt that any Theist would say that God isn’t natural.
.

There is no such thing as the supernatural.

.
Of course. “The supernatural” refers to the contraventions of physical law that occur in fiction, such as movies about vampires, werewolves, witches, and murderous mummies. It’s something that’s only in movies and other fiction.
.
Or, if Harry means something else by “The Supernatural”, then whether there is or isn’t “The Supernatural” would depend on specifically what Harry means by it.
.
But let’s look at what dictionaries say about what the supernatural is. The dictionaries I consulted didn’t give “Supernatural” as a noun. So we can defined “The Supernatural” as “That which is supernatural”.
.
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “supernatural”:
.
“Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.”
.
Presuming that all that is physical is potentially “observable” in some manner, then, by the above definition something supernatural would have to be nonphysical.
.
Abstract implications about hypothetical propositions are nonphysical, but they can be “observed” when they’re described, in print for example. So they aren’t the Supernatural.
.
No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
Therefore, the meanings of words (other than the ones whose meaning can be physically expressed in some sort of physical directly-demonstrative sign-language) are part of The Supernatural.
.
So there indeed is The Supernatural.
.
I haven’t yet mentioned Houghton-Mifflin’s definition:
.
“Of or relating to experience outside the natural world.”
.
In other words, The Supernatural is experience of what isn’t natural.
.
So, of course the next thing would be to look up how Houghton-Mifflin defines natural. Its first definition of “natural” is:
.
“Present in or produced by nature”
.
So now we should find out how Houghton-Mifflin defines “nature”.
.
Houghton-Mifflin’s first definition of “nature” is:
.
“The material world and its phenomena”.
.
I’ve mentioned things that aren’t part of the material world and its phenomena. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions. …which “there are”, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
So, by Houghton-Mifflin too, there is The Supernatural.
.
Verdict:
.
By Merrian-Webster, and by Houghton-Mifflin, there is The Supernatural.
.
Sorry if you don’t like that.
.
But, aside from that:
.
I don’t believe that there are contraventions of physical law. If a supposed physical law is violated, then it isn’t a physical law, and it needs to be rewritten or discarded…as has happened in the history of physics. A contravened “physical law” isn’t a physical law.
.
So, if The Supernatural is contravention of physical law, then yes, there’s no such thing as The Supernatural.
.
But I doubt that any Theists would say that God isn’t natural.
.
I’ll take a guess: Maybe by “natural”, Harry means “physical”. Are there things that aren’t physical? Of course. As I said above, there are such things in metaphysics. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. And you needn’t quibble about whether “there are” such things. There are such things in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.

Everything is interconnected

.
That’s a questionable statement. There are completely unrelated, separate, mutually-isolated, mutually-independent systems of inter-referring abstract implications.
.

and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science.

.
As I said, science seeks to describe and explain elements of the physical world in terms of eachother. Period. (Full-stop.)
.
Maybe Harry means that this physical universe is inter-connected and its internal relations are potentially explainable in terms of science. Sure, that’s a reasonable thing to say.
.

Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god.

.
Religious wars have a way of being wars with material motivation, cloaked in religious justification. (But I’m not claiming that that’s always the case.) But that’s a whole other topic for a different thread.
.
But sure, religions, and conceptions of God, differ so much that it’s ridiculous and astoundingly conceited for Harry to claim that none of those conceptions have evidence, unless he finds out each of them, and then demonstrates that each one of them is without evidence.
.

Science knows no contextual limitations.

.
Spoken like a true Science-Worshipper.
.
Harry’s speaking from his devout religious belief, and that’s why it’s not really possible to worthwhile-ly talk to him.
.

True science is open to new evidence for anything

:D …anything that’s physically-measurable or physically-observable.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Religion is socialized ego dissociation, and/or socialized art.

Keep in mind though, that the prototype of man could have already passed, and civilization could indeed be a post-case scenario in which problems like severe depression, schizophrenia, autism, genetic abnormalities, cancer and many other modern afflictions represent the never again attainable closestness to what would be a Utopian society.

Personally I think this 'utopia' was before surplus and civilization.

Cancer is basically another way of saying people are dying from old age, which is a sign of improving conditions, not worsening ones. While there are sad cases of children getting cancer, what we typically see is cancer increasing with age. As we are now living longer, we are more and more likely to die from cancer. How this gets turned into a bad thing is unclear to me. Especially since our cancer treatments are also vastly improving.

”As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists. — Michael Ossipoff
.
As opposed to what?

.
As opposed to other Theisms.
.

If you're going to be like that, then how about you put forward your understanding of God, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it

.
As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads.
.
If I wanted to argue the Theism vs Atheism issue with you, I’d re-post all of that here for you. But I’ve many times clarified that I don’t argue Theism vs Atheism. To post those reasons to this thread would constitute argument, and I don’t do argument about this matter, because I don’t regard it as a topic for assertion, argument or proof. I’m not interested in proselytizing you.
.
…but nothing’s stopping you from finding those discussions of mine, in those other threads, and then showing us, in this thread, how you refute what I said there. …if you can refute an impression.
.
But if I were to challenge you to do so, that would be arguing, which I don’t do on this matter.
.
I’m at this thread merely to show that aggressive Atheists either don’t know, or aren’t being clear about, what they mean.
.
But, aside from any of that, suppose I re-posted all that here for you, and you refuted it. That would show that you’ve refuted not one, but two Theisms. That would be meaningless and worthless, unless you can demonstrate that there are only two Theisms.
.
Besides, as I’ve many times pointed out, I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like you.
.

, thereby showing that there are atheists - aggressive atheists even (who here would deny my aggression?) - that aren't tied down to this single straw man notion of God which you've flung in their direction.

.
It isn’t that I’ve flung it in your direction. It’s the One True God of the aggressive Atheists, which they fling every time they fling something.

.If you actually stepped back from your usual schtick of characterising atheists in the worst possible light

.
They don’t need my help to do that.
.

, and you took a moment to stop and listen to what atheists, such as I, are actually saying, then you might just find that you're mistaken. For example, I've explicitly acknowledged in another discussion on this forum that the concept of God is one of the most variable concepts out there, which is quite the opposite of what you suggest.

.
No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms.
.

But then, if this God-as-metaphor…

.
I didn’t say “metaphor”. Yes, a lot of people, including some Atheists, use “God” as a metaphor. What I said was that I don’t usually use that word (except when replying to those who have used it), because it has an anthropomorphic implication.
.

…contains nothing inherently theistic…

.
I didn’t say that either. Strictly-speaking, it would be an obvious contradiction to say that mention of God isn’t Theistic, given the meaning of “Theism”. But the use, by many Theists, of allegorical or anthropomorphic terminology doesn’t change the fact that (…at least it’s my impression that…), behind that terminology, lie unexpressed impressions and beliefs that are in common with those of some other people who don’t use that terminology. ..justifying designation of those other people as “Theists” too
.
In other words, in terms of belief (…in spite of many of them expressing dogmatism that I don’t share, or allegorical anthropomorphic language that I don’t share), I have more in common with a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theist than with someone like you.
.
However, behaviorally, and in terms of manners, arrogance, conceit, and dogmatism, the Mormons on my porch have a lot more in common with you than with me.
.

, then the question you must answer is why should the atheist disbelieve it in the first place? (E.g. God is love, or God is the world). They would be atheists no less. And that would just be empty wordplay.

.
There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists.
.
At one Science-&-Philosophy forum there was a phony self-designated “physicist” (who later changed into a “population-ecologist” when he was shown to have said something that a physicist wouldn’t say) who said that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”, which, according to him (I don’t know Spinoza) is synonymous with this physical Universe. That’s a good example as the use of God as a metaphor by an Atheist.
.
But yes, maybe some professed Atheists would agree with some non-Literalist Theisms. But I doubt it, because I don’t think any non-Literalist Theisms support Materialism or Science-Worship, a religion believed-in by most Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.
— praxis

That doesn't necessarily make it good. Is the religion of the cave prisoners, the primary meaning of which stems from shadows on the cave wall, good? Good compared to what? That's the question. Good compared to the same situation, but without shadows on the wall? That's understandable. Good compared to breaking free and seeing the world as it is? Much less understandable. Who needs cave shadows when there's a whole world full of natural wonder to explore? Suddenly the significance of cave shadows and the lives of the prisoners seems extraordinarily impoverished. — S

A believer might argue that meaninglessness is impoverished.

I would argue that meaning is all around us and we are free to discover and develop it as we see fit. We don't need to be spoon-fed by some authority figure an outdated prepackaged system.

”You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
And you aren't being very clear to us about your notion of God. You've taken the liberty of assigning a God to "Aggressive Atheists", without saying anything at all, in contrast, about your own notion of God.

.
1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.
.
2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website. Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to (…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression). If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.
.

Tell us more. Why should an atheist invest significant time and effort into what, I suspect, amounts to speculation or wordplay?

.
Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?
.
Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.
.

Do you think that you've got a notion which doesn't amount to speculation or wordplay? If so, I'd be interested to hear it.

.
Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It's disingenuous to say that it is only a religious position if someone claims "because God said so." That's hardly the case for numerous religions. In fact, not all religions even believe in a God. I suppose if you misrepresent religion, and paint it into a corner, falsely claiming that all religious assertions are of the form, "Because God, therefore X," you would have a "logical" point, but, empirically, it would be way off the mark and false.

Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? Karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God or impersonal deity, eternal punishment or temporary hell, one God or many gods? Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? I would say no. Therefore religion has no place in philosophy.

The philosophical dimension of religion is theology; a discipline distinct from philosophy. Philosophy of religion concerns itself with religious phenomena and their philosophical implications, with comparative religion and the general human significance of religious ideas and the philosophical significance of the fact that humans have religious ideas at all, so it is not theology.

As opposed to other Theisms. — Michael Ossipoff

Then either A) I'm not an aggressive atheist or B) I am an agressive atheist, but you're mistaken about them, given that I reject other theisms too.

As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not going to hunt around through your comments in other discussions. You should be capable of summarising your own views like you summarised (uncharitably) those of your opponents.

If I wanted to argue the Theism vs Atheism issue with you, I’d re-post all of that here for you. But I’ve many times clarified that I don’t argue Theism vs Atheism. To post those reasons to this thread would constitute argument, and I don’t do argument about this matter, because I don’t regard it as a topic for assertion, argument or proof. I’m not interested in proselytizing you. — Michael Ossipoff

If you didn't want to delve further into the theism vs. atheism discussion, then you shouldn't have begun delving into it by ranting about a kind of atheism.

…but nothing’s stopping you from finding those discussions of mine, in those other threads, and then showing us, in this thread, how you refute what I said there. …if you can refute an impression. — Michael Ossipoff

Wrong. There is something stopping me from doing so: quid pro quo. As if I'm going to do all of the work for you!

But if I were to challenge you to do so, that would be arguing, which I don’t do on this matter. — Michael Ossipoff

Sure, nothing you've said is at all contentious or argumentative. Those comments of yours must have been a figment of my imagination.

You clearly have a stake in this debate and an axe to grind. You haven't done a great job of concealing that fact. Why deny it?

I’m at this thread merely to show that aggressive Atheists either don’t know, or aren’t being clear about, what they mean. — Michael Ossipoff

And there it is. But you haven't succeeded in your goal. I'm clear that it can mean a variety of things, that it ultimately depends on the theist, and that, withstanding any clear meaning, we could, for argument's sake, talk about, say, this One True God of Fundamental Biblical-Literalists. And why not? Since you have spoken about this God more than any other conception, and you seem unwilling to go into any other conception, even when pressed.

But, aside from any of that, suppose I re-posted all that here for you, and you refuted it. That would show that you’ve refuted not one, but two Theisms. That would be meaningless and worthless, unless you can demonstrate that there are only two Theisms. — Michael Ossipoff

Well, for one thing, it would show that I can't be an aggressive atheist, since, according to you, aggressive atheists only have one God which they're concerned with refuting.

And what's this nonsense about refuting "only" two theisms? I don't have to refute every single version of theism, you silly goose! I'm an atheist until I'm convinced of a different view, which I'm not, as of yet.

A piece of advice: maybe if you put more time and effort into actually understanding the different types and meanings of atheism, and asking atheists about their position, instead of speaking "at" atheists, imposing your characterisations and straw man onto them, telling them exactly what they believe or don't believe, what kind of atheist they are, what they need to refute, and so on, and so forth, then you would avoid running into this problem in future.

Besides, as I’ve many times pointed out, I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like you. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not a fundamentalist or a literalist. I'm quite happy to get into a discussion of a different kind of theism, and I have attempted to go down that path once already. It is you who is trying to force the path of fundamentalism and literalism. We wouldn't even be talking about it now if it weren't for you!

It isn’t that I’ve flung it in your direction. It’s the One True God of the aggressive Atheists, which they fling every time they fling something. — Michael Ossipoff

And this is your favourite subject?

No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms. — Michael Ossipoff

Haha! Yeah, except that that clearly contradicts what I've actually said. Gosh, you're really desperate to pigeon hole me, aren't you? It seems to be your modus operandi.

Step 1. Call opponent Aggressive Atheist Fundamentalist Literalist, Materialist Science-Worshipper, or Something Along those Lines.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. WIN!

I didn’t say “metaphor”. — Michael Ossipoff

You didn't really say anything. That's the problem. So yes, I had to do a bit of guess work.

Yes, a lot of people, including some Atheists, use “God” as a metaphor. What I said was that I don’t usually use that word (except when replying to those who have used it), because it has an anthropomorphic implication. — Michael Ossipoff

And that doesn't really say much either. Out of curiosity, what word do you use, then? Supreme Being? The One? The Great Holy Non-Anthropomorphic Thingamajig?

I didn’t say that either. — Michael Ossipoff

I know, you didn't say anything.

Strictly-speaking, it would be an obvious contradiction to say that mention of God isn’t Theistic, given the meaning of “Theism”. But the use, by many Theists, of allegorical or anthropomorphic terminology doesn’t change the fact that (…at least it’s my impression that…), behind that terminology, lie unexpressed impressions and beliefs that are in common with those of some other people who don’t use that terminology. ..justifying designation of those other people as “Theists” too — Michael Ossipoff

There are two possibilities:

1. They're saying something trivial which amounts to wordplay. E.g. "God is the world". Atheists believe in the world. Therefore atheists believe in God? Therefore atheists are theists? Obviously that's a load of nonsense.

2. They're being sneaky. E.g. "God is the world". (But what I really mean is ________________, which is what distinguishes me from an atheist). Then say what you really mean!

In other words, in terms of belief (…in spite of many of them expressing dogmatism that I don’t share, or allegorical anthropomorphic language that I don’t share), I have more in common with a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theist than with someone like you. — Michael Ossipoff

All the worse for you!

However, behaviorally, and in terms of manners, arrogance, conceit, and dogmatism, the Mormons on my porch have a lot more in common with you than with me. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, of course, I'm a dastardadly villain, and you're a white knight. Me bad, you good. You're smart, I'm dumb; You're big, I'm little; You're right, I'm wrong, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I see what you're doing. If only name calling was a substitute for argumentation, eh?

There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists. — Michael Ossipoff

Then what's your problem? You were moaning about the only God that aggressive atheists disbelieve being a literal God. Now you're saying there's no reason why atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. What other alternative is there, then?

At one Science-&-Philosophy forum there was a phony self-designated “physicist” (who later changed into a “population-ecologist” when he was shown to have said something that a physicist wouldn’t say) who said that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”, which, according to him (I don’t know Spinoza) is synonymous with this physical Universe. That’s a good example as the use of God as a metaphor by an Atheist. — Michael Ossipoff

Yeah, and I don't have a major problem with that, I just wouldn't call the physical universe "God", anymore than I'd call it "David Letterman", "Buddha" or "Flying Fish", because it seems silly, redundant and unclear. But sure, call the physical universe whatever you want.

But again, this gets back to: what's your problem, then?

But yes, maybe some professed Atheists would agree with some non-Literalist Theisms. But I doubt it, because I don’t think any non-Literalist Theisms support Materialism or Science-Worship, a religion believed-in by most Atheists. — Michael Ossipoff

Ha! That's funny. You really don't like to concede any ground, do you? You have to get a little jab in there. Sling a little mud.

Of course they would agree, with the qualification that it's just meaningless wordplay. If I call my toaster God, then that hardly makes me a theist for believing that my toaster exists! That's sophism, not philosophy. There's a big difference.

It's disingenuous to say that it is only a religious position if someone claims "because God said so." That's hardly the case for numerous religions. In fact, not all religions even believe in a God. I suppose if you misrepresent religion, and paint it into a corner, falsely claiming that all religious assertions are of the form, "Because God, therefore X," you would have a "logical" point, but, empirically, it would be way off the mark and false. — LD Saunders

Is that supposed to be a reply to me? Because I didn't say that.

There's something unique to a general concept of religion which distinguishes it from philosophy, whether it's God, ritual, tradition, divinity, worship, faith, devotion, the supernatural, whatever.

Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.
— Wayfarer

What realities would that be? — praxis

To think of a few examples at random - the sacred feminine/motherhood/Mother Mary/Kwan Yin

The Hero's Journey, the hero with a thousand faces.

Suffering/sacrifice/loss

Redemption/salvation/transcendence.

In Jung's terms, these are themes that will surface in dreams, in art, literature and drama - arising from the unconscious or the archetypal domain. You see them in popular culture the same as in the Caves of Altimira.

___

The point I want to make is that in Western culture, due to the emphasis on, and conflicts over, right belief - a.k.a. 'orthodoxy' - the culture as a whole tends to firewall religion off.

Consider as an example the founding charter of The Royal Society, the first scientific society, founded 1660, which said at the very outset, to paraphrase, 'leave metaphysics alone'. This, mind you, was in the aftermath (or was it the midst?) of the 30 Years War, where bands of Catholic and Protestant militia were engaged in unholy slaughter. The turmoil of the reformation and counter-reformation. So the Enlightenment wanted to be quit of all that, and quite understandably so. And I say that modern culture is still living the shadow, often without much awareness of what has happened.

t's interesting pondering about Kant's position in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason where he equates Christianity as the advent where a pure morality is made possible; but only by removing the dogma out of the equation you will find its kernel. — Simon H

I'm very much a fan of neo-Kantianism and Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'. But I think he lacked the essential dash of mystical insight to complement his brilliant rational analysis of knowledge. I agree with the statement that The Critique of Pure Reason is the key philosophical text of our age. But Kant did not have any hint of 'gnosis' about him, which I think Hegel did. (Now there's a massive can of worms.)

Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? — Janus

I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth. All of the higher religions claim to represent or have originated with a revealed truth. And one point about a revealed truth is that you're not going to guess it or arrive at it by any empirical process or indeed by any other meanings. Alan Watts says in The Supreme Identity, that all the great metaphysical texts start without preamble, introduction or apology, with a statement of the Absolute; this, he says, goes against all the inclinations of our day, in that we want to proceed stepwise towards a conclusion.

But that is, I suggest, that religious philosophies are radical. They originate (or claim to) with an insight into the fact that nearly everyone, that the human condition, is one of delusion or ignorance. Whereas much of the aim of post-Enlightenment culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant. :-)

So in the case of Buddhism, the Buddha proclaimed his 'truth of the origin and end of suffering'. Only later did that become a dogma, which is simply the regular expression of particular philosophical tenets or ideas. In Western culture, I don't know if it's dogma that is so much the problem, but authoritarianism supported by dogma.

I believe the Schoolmen acknowledged that the so-called rational arguments for God's existence were based on faith: "faith seeking understanding".

So, they have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth? Or...? — S

They might. Or they might not. A parish priest might know nothing else, but a Tantrik Sadhaka might cook a meal on pages of scripture.

What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture.

That a scripture or oral teaching is "revealed truth" is obviously a dogma, a matter of faith; something that cannot be philosophically argued for. — Janus

'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

The Buddha, Kalama Sutta, in response to a question from the Kalama people on which religious teachers ought to be trusted.

(I should note, this passage is frequently referenced by Western Buddhists in support of a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism. I don't think it is really that, but the emphasis on 'finding out for yourself' is indisputable.)

Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.

There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable.

Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not?

1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you. — Michael Ossipoff

Trivial. Just imagine that when I use the word "God" it's whatever word you use instead, which you have yet to actually state. (I'm no psychic).

2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, at other threads. :roll:

That is of no help.

Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to (…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression). — Michael Ossipoff

Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.

If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism. — Michael Ossipoff

Right, and I don't do housework. But I'm just going to keep on moaning about the dishes, the dirty clothes, the dusty surfaces, and so on. Go for it and do all of my housework if you want to, but, as I said, I don't do housework, I just expect you to put up with my moaning about it, and when you confront me about it and ask why I don't just shut up and get on with it, I'll just revert back to my complaining and denialism.

Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs? — Michael Ossipoff

You didn't say anything. You just made vague suggestions which I'm having to tease out of you like blood out of a stone.

Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism. — Michael Ossipoff

Ha! That's not my task. The burden is on the theist. First, I need to be presented with a version of theism. Then I'll examine it. And we can take it from there. I'm content with having never come across a version of theism, in all of my years, which isn't so problematic that it doesn't warrant acceptance. That is my position.

Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it. — Michael Ossipoff

Feel free to present it to me if you want me to invest my time and effort on it.

I'm very much a fan of neo-Kantianism and Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'. But I think he lacked the essential dash of mystical insight to complement his brilliant rational analysis of knowledge. I agree with the statement that The Critique of Pure Reason is the key philosophical text of our age. But Kant did not have any hint of 'gnosis' about him, which I think Hegel did. (Now there's a massive can of worms.) — Wayfarer

I was mostly interested in lifting the fact that arguably the most influential philosopher of the enlightenment lifted Christianity right into the heart of its project. Nietzsche makes a scolding remark about this and the romantics in his later writings (I believe it is The Anti-Christ) and makes us aware that all the germans (philosophers) were bottom-and-up pietists.

*Edited my post about secular as I was a bit to generalising*

What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture. — Wayfarer

I very much agree with this.