You confuse debating the existence of God with considering whether God exists, and coming to a conclusion. I suppose others who cherish the task of repeating arguments made for centuries are similarly confused. There's no "fire" left in the debate. It's become a kind of elaborate ritual. Each side of the debate engages in a kind of special pleading, in any case.

Some views of God, and for that matter of religion, can be said to be less unreasonable than others, but I think that's as far as reason can take us, and debate is fruitless in the absence of reason. I find it impossible to accept a personal God, or a transcendent one, but like the Stoics I find it possible to accept an immanent God. it's not one that resembles the God most worship and too often try to make other people accept. But it's a God worthy of poetry and music of a sort that appeals me and by which I can catch a hint of it, and I think it's is in that fashion that we are best able to discern what's divine in the universe. It's fruitless to argue about or try to explain why we like poetry or music of a particular kind as well, I believe.

you might get a kick out of this one

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.

Hm.

start challenging atheism then — Jake

What is there to challenging atheism other than promoting theism?
Theism is the name of this game, exemplified by Vishnu Yahweh Allah Vedas Bible Quran etc, yes?

("promoting" may not be the right word here, Englitch is my 2^nd language)

I'm just not interested, that's all. — Jake

Please.

I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. — Jake

I just politely requested that you supply us the correct 'instructions' for what I was lead to believe is a method for seriously challenging atheism.

I just politely requested that you supply us the correct 'instructions' for what I was lead to believe is a method for seriously challenging atheism. — praxis

And you received what you requested.

Start a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that members reasonably challenge theism.

So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you? — Jake

There's already a challenge for atheism in terms of my kind of atheism vs. other positions. But if you think that I created this discussion to debate myself, then you've misunderstood why I created this discussion. See the opening post.

And you are stopping me, or at least getting in the way and slowing things down, with your lack of cooperation. No real challenge has come from you.

But we do have evidence. After thousands of years of investigation and dialog led by some of the best minds among us, we have compelling evidence that we have no compelling evidence to support either belief or disbelief. That is, we have strong evidence of our ignorance.

1) We had a huge investigation.
2) We uncovered an important fact.
3) We don't like that fact.
4) So we keep doing the same thing (God debate) over and over again expecting different results, ie. the definition of stupidity.

There is an alternative to this stupidity.

1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use. — Jake

Is any of that supposed to be a challenge to my position? If so, how?

The best test to see if the theist really wants to explore the vulnerability of theism is to simply observe whether they are already engaged in such an inquiry on their own. Are they already on the job? Or are they sitting back waiting for someone else to do the work so that they can repeat their memorized slogans.

S has shown us what he really wants to do, and that is what he's doing in this thread. He wants to sell atheism, sell his imaginary cleverness, and get in to ego food fights. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that. Everyone should proceed with that agenda and enjoy the process.

I'm just not interested, that's all. I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. For the moment I see no evidence that such a conversation is going to emerge here, so this is my last comment on the matter. — Jake

Ah, at least you've finally come out with it: you now say that you're not interested, which is a very different tune to your fighting talk about you ripping my position to shreds or demolishing it.

I don't believe you when you say what you can do to my position, because when it comes down to it, you make excuses. You suggested I create a discussion, so I created a discussion. You have yet to demolish my position, and it seems you're not even willing to try. So you're all talk and no action.

I will open a new thread to answer this. It would be off-topic gere.

So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you? — Jake

Well, that's no worse than other arguments we see offered in favor of the existence of God.

I was wondering if you’ve thoroughly challenged your own lofty position. In claiming “our” ignorance, you’re saying that both theists and atheists are ignorant and don’t know the truth of the matter. You can claim your own ignorance. No one would object to that. Agnosticism, I think it’s called.

I don’t see it. Maybe you haven’t posted it yet.

You seemed to suggest that clarification of symbols or concepts would be productive to a discussion such as this one. Anyway, looking forward to the new topic.

We had 2 threads currently debating the definition of atheism, so I merged them. OP was from @SnoringKitten:

Hi, the following seems long winded but it's actually one simple statement repeated & fleshed out, before it returns back to the one simple statement.

PROBLEM:

There is a lot of confusion today between the terms Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism.

We now see people who are Agnostic Atheists, Agostic Christians, Atheist Agnostics and that's just the beginning.

I'm not sure what the dictionaries state on the matter but l'd like to cut through all the confusion.

FACT #1: Our beliefs fluctuate, as the Muslims believe: Faith (Iman) goes up and down.

Therefore: Labels addressing our thoughts in toto, are not useful, as we hold manycontradictory internal beliefs. Those contradictory beliefs are a good thing because it means we have an internal dialogue going on, it means we have reasoned our faith.

FACT #2: Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism - these labels are NOT meaningless.

Deep inside, we know what each of these things is. We just know.


SOLUTION (= middle way between Fact #1 & #2, & the carnival of chimaeric appellations arising from the three labels Atheist, Agnostic, Theist): Let each of these terms relate to what the lips profess, regardless of the backend operations in the mind, the arguments to-and-fro in the backs of our minds. The label "Atheist" / "Agnostic" / "Theist" relate to the end conclusion of our bourgeoning internal dialogue on the matter with its many concessions to atheism & theism - the label is the END product of ALL that:

Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"

Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"

Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science.


NOTES:

* Agnosticism thus becomes unthinkable for a sentient being, a human with higher faculties intact. How can we, as creatures of refined aesthetic, be so perfectly on the fence between two rival beliefs? Have we no aesthetic inclination either way, at the very least?

Also how can two rival beliefs be so perfectly matched as to justify Agnosticism as a permanent camp?


* Agnostic Atheism = intellectual dishonesty. Atheists know that they cannot scientifically dismiss God, as God / Atheism are unfalsifiable. Therefore, they sit on the fence. Yet devoid of aesthetic (such that they cannot even feel preference for one camp over the other), they try to voice their materialism in a simultaneous declaration of Atheism, which totally contradicts the entire point of Agnosticism in my scheme.


* Therefore l feel we can now do away with "Agnosticism" + "Agnostic Atheism". This leaves just Atheism and Theism. Therefore my solution is elegant.



CONCLUSION:

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are now redefined as what the lips actually profess, not the mind in toto.

It follows that Agnosticism as such doesn't exist.

It also follows that Agnostic Atheism is intellectually dishonest.

I would also like to make the charge of intellectual dishonesty against Atheism because God/No-God are unfalsifiable concepts, and as l've explained: Muslims at least consider the religious to be Believers, not Knowers, hence you cannot accuse them of being unscientific in violating unfalsifiability. I'm happy to leave that for another discussion though.



Feel free to argue but l'd like to state: Beyond page 1 of this debate, l will likely switch off as will most other casual visitors.

Please read this OP thoroughly before raising a point that has already been covered. I believe this OP is watertight. It's imperative that we adopt these new definitions of Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism.

You seemed to suggest that clarification of symbols or concepts would be productive to a discussion such as this one. — praxis

Yep, it would. But S was not interested in it.

I haven't posted it yet (it requires some thought as to the best approach; I think I'll go with historical). Being a bit overworked here, too, since I have just arrived from a field trip. But I think I'll do it tomorrow at the latest.

We had 2 threads currently debating the definition of atheism, so I merged them. — fdrake

I object to that and request that what you've done be reversed. This discussion isn't about debating the definition of atheism, it's about my actual position, whether it's right or wrong, and so on. I don't want replies to his opening post here.

I can't undo it, nor would I if I could. The two threads were examining different definitions of atheism. You can continue talking just as before.

Yep, it would. But S was not interested in it. — Mariner

Wait, where are you getting that from? I objected to what you were saying, I explained why, but we didn't seem to be getting anywhere, and it had started to go around in circles. That's not quite the same thing as me just saying "I ain't interested!".

I can't undo it, nor would I if I could. The two threads were examining different definitions of atheism. You can continue talking just as before. — fdrake

You can rectify it by moving it, which a moderator is capable of doing, and either you or another moderator should do so, because it's not appropriate here, despite a vague similarity in the topic. It would be better suited in a separate discussion. This ain't about definitions, full stop. It is very clearly about my position.

I suppose I could let it go, and if it doesn't attract replies which are off-topic, then it's not that big a deal, but it was still a bad decision and I would have preferred it had you not have interfered.

If it ends up with things veering far too off topic, the off topic replies can be split into a thread of their own. Forgot we had a split function too!

you're doing great fdrake, it's been a maelstrom on this topic of late.

@andrewk did the most work!

I objected to what you were saying, — S

You objected to what I was asking (not "saying") and said you lacked patience for it. If you have grown more patient in the meantime, all you have to do is to explain what you mean by god.

I am a patient guy :). Take your time.

I was wondering if you’ve thoroughly challenged your own lofty position. In claiming “our” ignorance, you’re saying that both theists and atheists are ignorant and don’t know the truth of the matter. — praxis

No one has proven any position. You feel that theists are ignorant because they haven't proven anything, and I agree. All I'm doing is applying the very same process you use in regards to theists to atheists as well. I'm the real atheist here, in the sense that I'm being loyal to the principles atheism is built upon.

You can claim your own ignorance. No one would object to that. Agnosticism, I think it’s called. — praxis

In my case I call myself a "Fundamentalist Agnostic", a silly ironic label which points to a position outside of the theist vs. atheist paradigm.

If you have grown more patient in the meantime, all you have to do is to explain what you mean by god. — Mariner

See what I mean about going around in circles? It doesn't have to, but the ball's in your court.

See what I mean about going around in circles? It doesn't have to, but the ball's in your court. — S

Well, I won't explain what you mean by the words you are using. So no circle here. Only a full stop.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4209/what-are-gods

mean by god — Mariner

Wouldn't it be, say, Brahma, Ganesha, Yahweh, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Jesus, Ridhu Bai, ...?
Those are some names used by adherents anyway.
I suppose the "god of the philosophers" might be listed as well, in a sense, though it's more of an intellectual exercise (abstract), not elaborate, no particular scriptures or temples or rituals or worship, and heaven, hell, karma, reincarnations, etc, are more extra additions.

it would always be best when one defined all their terms when making an argument - especially when they are so "loaded" such as faith, God, A/Theist, . But thankfully these little boxes are not graded. And in general, at least to me, if I give people a charitable benefit of the doubt on them - they are expedient.

For me - I think the only definition of God that is supported by reason is that of a non-contingent or necessary being. The God of the Bible, Koran, Tohra, etc. is IMO purely a matter of faith. ( now I need to define that !!)

(y)

Actually, instead of definitions, maybe just ensure we know what each other are talking about.
I've become wary of always insisting on definitions; it can become a whole unending thing all by itself.

By the way, per earlier (or was it a parallel thread?), I don't think a supposed necessity is the way to go.
Unless you want to get specific, and set out something necessary for our universe specifically perhaps.