And there it is again. Never mind? Have a nice day? I've waded in to waters too deep?

Indeed. It's beyond belief that some people actually think of faith in that way. The lengths that some people will go to in order to rationalise the irrational is quite remarkable. — S

Why is it hard to believe? You only say that becuase you do not have faith (a good thing).
People are taught to have faith, to use it as justification. This is no different than if you were taught anything erroneous, like being taught in school that the earth is flat. Would we be surprised that a person taught that, believed that?

Why is it hard to believe? You only say that becuase you do not have faith (a good thing).
People are taught to have faith, to use it as justification. This is no different than if you were taught anything erroneous, like being taught in school that the earth is flat. Would we be surprised that a person taught that, believed that? — DingoJones

Good point. You know, I almost added, "especially for a philosophy enthusiast", but then I remembered that, in some ways, philosophy is a parody of itself.

I still think I get to decide who, and for how long I engage with. Please feel free not to engage me if that is unacceptable to you. Again it is not a slight in any way, just have no interest in prolonged idea tennis where we both lob back and forth and at the end we will be in exactly the same place. Seems a waste of time to me.

don't see this going anywhere productive. Not being dismissive, and mean no slight whatsoever- but just see the start of a do loop that will not benefit either of us. — Rank Amateur

No, you do not see this as being an argument you can actually win. You are in fact being dismissive, because you cannot come up with answers to what I have said. This is incredibly dishonest of you, to claim this isnt productive and of no benifit to either of us. It is also dishonest to pretend you must withdraw for that reason when its simply because you have already lost the argument.
Thats fine, your character is your business, but I invite you to stop participating in these discussions as they will always lead to you refusing to participate becuase you will always come down to “faith” being your reason and you can not and will not defend it. This is a frustrating waste of time for others.
You might also be tempted to chalk this up to aggressive atheism, or me being a prick or me not understanding what you are saying...I urge you to recognise that these are hiding places, just like using faith as a basis and then refusing to discuss or defend it is a hiding place. Im sorry to say sir, that this is a decidedly cowardly way to engage.
I understand that this may seem like an attack, and that your reaction will be to dismiss or ignore what I am saying, cuz who am I to say something like that to you, right? Well, you must decide why im saying it...if it is because im just a hateful atheist, an insulting person, for ego or whatever other negative reason then it makes sense to dismiss or ignore me, but recognise that it might also be the case that I am trying to help, that my intentions are good...its just a difficult, emotional and potentially offensive point to have to make.
You will have to decide for yourself.

If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion. — Mayor of Simpleton

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example.

I still think I get to decide who, and for how long I engage with. Please feel free not to engage me if that is unacceptable to you. Again it is not a slight in any way, just have no interest in prolonged idea tennis where we both lob back and forth and at the end we will be in exactly the same place. Seems a waste of time to me. — Rank Amateur

It's alright, I understand. We all have our coping mechanisms.

Good point. You know, I almost added, "especially for a philosophy enthusiast", but then I remembered that, in some ways, philosophy is a parody of itself. — S

I think I understand what you mean, and indeed the same observation can be said about humans themselves.

I think nothing bad about you at all. I have absolutely no idea at all what winning an argument on here means, it is certainly no objective of mine.

My judgement is that there is nothing you can say to me on this topic that will be of any value to me. And likewise it is my judgment there is nothing I can say on this topic that you will value. I may be mistaken in my judgment, it has happened before, but if neither of us will gain anything, what is the point.

I think I understand what you mean, and indeed the same observation can be said about humans themselves. — DingoJones

The not-so-wise ape.

“Not-so-wise” compared to what?

My judgement is that there is nothing you can say to me on this topic that will be of any value to me. And likewise it is my judgment there is nothing I can say on this topic that you will value. I may be mistaken in my judgment, it has happened before, but if neither of us will gain anything, what is the point. — Rank Amateur

You or I could discover we are wrong, (that is very valuable) we could find out we are both wrong (the difficult one) We could trigger each other into thinking about it in a different way and explore the avenue together (the rarest and grandest reward by my account)....does none of that hold value to you?
I do not think your concern is about what you might gain, but rather what you might lose.

I think nothing bad about you at all. I have absolutely no idea at all what winning an argument on here means, it is certainly no objective of mine. — Rank Amateur

Well this I would agree in at least. Winning an argument is the means, not the goal. The goal of course is enlightenment, learning, growing etc.

If anyone cares to discuss the question does god exist without taking things personally or making attacks of person, using tu quoque or employing constant psychological deflection, I'd find this to be an interesting topic. — Mayor of Simpleton

I am not sure what is left to be said on the subject.

I am aware of only 3 basic arguments against theism.

1. No seeum arguments - basically we have looked around and we don't see God, or any convincing evidence of God, therefore God does not exist.

2. The argument from evil - A God who is the 3 O's can not permit evil, evil exists therefore God does not

3. All the 3O paradoxes ( almost left these out - not sure they meet the standard of argument)

All are reasonable arguments and all have equally reasonable challenges.

I am not aware of 1 reasonable argument for a 3 O God.

But there are good arguments for a necessary being or uncreated creator.

These are reasonable, and also have reasonable objections.

I see little purpose to re hash these arguments with others who are aware of them. They are important arguments that those who are unaware should understand.

What I do think is a more important discussion is, is theism a reasonable belief? I know of no argument that ends in a conclusion that theism is unreasonable. If one could make a good argument that theism is outside reason, then theists like me would have to abandon our belief or be fools.

In the interim, until such an argument exists- then my hope is that both theist and atheist would respect each other's position as reasonable, and currently un resolvable.

“Not-so-wise” compared to what? — DingoJones

Compared to my arse.

I don't know if that helps, but if not... I can add more words. — Mayor of Simpleton

For the love of god and all things holy, please, not that. Anything but that. :pray:

The goal of course is enlightenment, learning, growing etc. — DingoJones

Yes. And winning. :zip:

Lol, well its hard to argue with that. Touche.

Lol, well its hard to argue with that. Touche. — DingoJones

It's a wise crack.

Again it is not a slight in any way, just have no interest in prolonged idea tennis where we both lob back and forth and at the end we will be in exactly the same place. — Rank Amateur

How dare you be so sensible!!! What is your problem??? Attention moderators!! :smile:

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example. — S

I have really no idea what this criticism has to do with my comment.

I was simply asking for clarification as to what was meant by "forget theism" in another post. In my reply I simply asked if they meant we should forget theism, as in have it leave out memories.

An understanding of the basics of theism is required to understand large portiont of cultural history. Having theism forgotten would mean that necessary aspect to understand history would be lost.

Meow!

G

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but: only an atheist would believe that atheism is older than Christianity. For the Christian, Adam and Eve directly knew God, and before them, the angels knew him, and before that, well, God knew himself.

I am aware of only 3 basic arguments against theism. — Rank Amateur

Here's a couple of questions for you.

I spoke of debating the existence of god and what you mentioned here were 3 arguments against theism.

Is theism (an ideology) the same as the existence of god (an ideal)?

If one has an ideal, does that mean one must have an ideology formed around that ideal or could one simply have an ideal that does not result in an ideology?

Basically is an ideal and ideology the same thing?

Meow!

G

I have really no idea what this criticism has to do with my comment.

I was simply asking for clarification as to what was meant by "forget theism" in another post. In my reply I simply asked if they meant we should forget theism, as in have it leave out memories.

An understanding of the basics of theism is required to understand a large portion of cultural history. Having theism forgotten would mean that necessary aspect to understand history would be lost. — Mayor of Simpleton

It's not complicated. You said that you wouldn't advocate forgetting theism. I pointed out that you're saying that from a position of privilege, and I think that I made it clear what I meant by that. The thing is, that decision wouldn't just affect you and your bourgeois concerns. Some people have more pressing concerns. Some people are stuck with the short end of the stick. And for these people, that decision could be profoundly life changing.

I realize that, it was funny. I was just not funny back apparently.

Is theism (an ideology) the same as the existence of god (an ideal)?

If one has an ideal, does that mean one must have an ideology formed around that ideal or could one simply have an ideal that does not result in an ideology?

Basically is an ideal and ideology the same thing? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not sure how we could separate them for the purpose of our discussion. Don't see much difference between what you believe to exist, does or does not exist, and it exists or not. If that is what you are asking.

and before that, well, God knew himself — NKBJ

Hopefully not in the biblical sense. I'm pretty sure there's a para somewhere in the bible forbidding that sort of thing. :razz:

It's not complicated. You said that you wouldn't advocate forgetting theism. — S

That's fine.

I pointed out that you're saying that from a position of privilege, and I think that I made it clear what I meant by that. — S

How do you know what position I'm coming from on the basis of so little information?

Do you know where I'm from?

Do you know any conditions of my life, past or present?

Exactly what makes me come from this assumed position of privilege you speak of?

Well... perhaps what you stated was clear, but the foundation is certainly not.

The thing is, that decision wouldn't just affect you and your bourgeois concerns. — S

How do you know that this sort of decision will not affect my life?

How do you know what my concerns happen to be?

Actually, do you really know my concerns at all?

Is the basis of a handful of posts on my part on rather specific points of conversation a tell all of my concerns?

What makes you think that the assumptions you have asserted about my concerns are indeed charactistic of bourgeois concerns?

What exactly are bourgeois concerns?

Some people have more pressing concerns. — S

Indeed... and what concerns are these that are more pressing?

Why are my assumed concerns, assumed to be bourgeois concerns, not as pressing as the concerns of "some people"; an undisclosed group of people set up as an unseen authority?

Some people are stuck with the short end of the stick. — S

Are you somehow aware of "what end of the stick I have been "stuck with"?

What makes you think you can possibly know what end of the stick I have been in my experience?

Do you know where I live?

Where is have lived?

What my education consists of?

How I can to my education?

What supports and obstacles I have in the process of my education?

Do you know anything about me really?

And for these people, that decision could be profoundly life changing. — S

So the notion here is that this decision makes a less profound change in my life than this undisclosed appeal to authority, why is that so?

Is that so?

How do you know in any way whatsoever what changes have occurred in my life; be they profound or less profound?

-----------------------------

In short, your response here is bleeding with hasty assumptions and appeals to an unseen authority with an undisclosed standard of measure of which I seem to have been assumed to have "better in of a stick" as compared to an undisclosed group of other some people; thus have no profound experiences worthy of discussion as I'm assumed to be bourgeois in my concerns that you have never bothered to concern yourself with asking what they might be, but simply brushed them off as a position of privilege.

WOW!

You got all that from next to no personal information and a handful of posts on a rather specific topic?

AMAZING!

I ask you if you'd care to see if all of your (blind) assumptions are true or perhaps in parttrue, but I seems more that you have decided to paint a preffered narritive of how you believe I must be in character and concerns upon the basis of extremely little, but as you decided to make your self-assumed points via an assumption (an attack) on my character rather than on the content of the debate I can say I have no interest in discussing personal matter with you.

Feel free to be angry with me if you so do choose and if you'd like we can bring in the Ads and Mods of this forum to weigh the matter.

As I view it we are done.

Meow!

G

Not sure how we could separate them for the purpose of our discussion. Don't see much difference between what you believe to exist, does or does not exist, and it exists or not. If that is what you are asking. — Rank Amateur

My point is this...

I am interested in discussing the existence of god.

I am not interested in discussing the validityand soundness of an ideology.

In other words I am interested in whether god exists and not the subsequent religious notions that form after it is assumed that god exists: thus I am not interested in a discussion about the validity of theism (an ideology).

To be fair, if we cannot establish that god exists what point is there in bothering to discuss the subsequent theistic ideologies (theism) that follows?

To my knowledge there are 36 arguments for the existence of god.

All arguments for the validity and soundness of theism would hing on one of the 36 arguments staning up as vailid with true premises.

One thing I can say is that these arguments for god's existence are claimed as empirical a posteriori. They differ from staements of faith (or so it is claimed). If one claims they have faith in the existence of god I will not argue with that as it is not a matter of empirical knowledge, but rather a centering of the being (Tillich). I will grant one faith, but I will debate empirical a posteriori claims.

Does that make sense?

Meow!

G

I am interested in discussing the existence of god. — Mayor of Simpleton

Understand, happy to play the theist foil if you wish. A few caveats. I have no reason based argument for “god” of the Christian bible.

And I have nothing new to add the CA.

Also happy to argue against the atheist arguments I noted above, but that is also a well worn path

Still find it more useful to challenge the atheist to argue my theism is unreasonable. More interested in establishing respect for theism as a reasoned possibility from the atheist than a debate to an unanswerable question.

I have no reason based argument for “god” of the Christian bible. — Rank Amateur

So you mean you base your belief in this (provided this is indeed the god of you belief... you haven't really said that outright and all I an say is it seems to be the case) god of the Christian bible upon faith and not empirical a posteriori reasoning?

If so, fair enough.

Also happy to argue against the atheist arguments I noted above, but that is also a well worn path — Rank Amateur

To tell the truth I have never bothered with atheist arguments. I've never quite understood the point of it.

If I wish to argue the existence of a new species I believe does exist, the proper method would be to argue that the species exists rather than argue why the yet to be confirmed species does not exist.

It seems to me that to argue in favor of a position that is founded only in the rejection of another assertion of belief is a bit odd. Why wouldn't one simply ask for evidence to prove the existence of something claimed to exist instead?

Wouldn't it make more sense to strenghten the argument for the existence of god; thus moving on to prove this point to be sound?

To simply find fault in the criticism against the argument for existence only illustrates/exposes that a particular criticism against the argument for the existence is executed poorly done or is weak. Illustrating/exposing poorly done logic or weakness in a criticism against a point does not prove the initial point of the argument. It only illustrates/exposes weakness in the criticism.

Indeed I find errors and weakness in some points of criticism regarding god existing, but these errors and weaknesses do nothing to prove the notion that god exists.

It seems unless we are wishing to refine the criticism against the existence of god there is really no point in this folly.

Meow!

G