I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not. — Ram
Russell is above them but I still think his arguments are weak. — Ram
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
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
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
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
when a religious belief is used to deny a scientific theory — LD Saunders
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
Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful. — praxis
Religion (noun) A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. "What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims. "Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it." "Then why do you not become an atheist?" "Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism." "In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."
Theology (noun) systematic universal reduction to magic; fossilized remains of superstition acquired by non-teleological evolution
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
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
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
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
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
I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser
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 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
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
.”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.
.”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
., and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god".
Wrong. Not all Theists have approached 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.
.I don't go around announcing my atheism.
.”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.
.The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method
.…and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science.
.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?
.Everything is natural.
.There is no such thing as the supernatural.
.Everything is interconnected
.and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science.
.Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god.
.Science knows no contextual limitations.
True science is open to new evidence for anything
.”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.
.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.
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
.”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.
.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.
As opposed to other Theisms. — Michael Ossipoff
As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads. — Michael Ossipoff
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
…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
But if I were to challenge you to do so, that would be arguing, which I don’t do on this matter. — Michael Ossipoff
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
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
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
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
No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms. — Michael Ossipoff
I didn’t say “metaphor”. — Michael Ossipoff
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
I didn’t say that either. — Michael Ossipoff
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
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
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
There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists. — Michael Ossipoff
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
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
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
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
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
Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? — Janus
So, they have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth? Or...? — S
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.'
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
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
Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to (…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression). — Michael Ossipoff
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
Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs? — Michael Ossipoff
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
Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it. — Michael Ossipoff
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.