But the whole thing should embarrass both sides. — Coben

Only insofar as the atheist would be embarrassed having to justify not believing in the Jabberwocky.

Are there people who believe Jabberwockies are omnicient and the like and a-jabborwokiests have been arguing that omnicient Jabborwockies lead to paradoxes? Jeez I either missed that debate or your pithy comment is irrelevant.

The Jabberwocky, and Santa, and most of those mythical/made up beings supposedly possess supernatural abilities.

And if that's not your point, please explain how atheists would be embarrassed? Because it doesn't make sense so far.

If what's not my point?

I am not sure anyone thinks Jabberowockies have any abilities. But, the main issue with your earlier post is that no one is debating the kinds of mathematically perfect abilities that theists and atheists sometimes do in relation to God about Jabberwockies. Your post seemed to think atheists or theists should be embarrassed for being in their categories, rather than for engaging in the debate which was the topic of my post.

You still haven't explained why in your view atheists should be embarrassed.

My question is, are there any viable alternatives to 'new atheism'? More specifically, where are the 'old-fashioned atheists' nowadays who can provide me with the intellectual tools to reinforce my atheistic beliefs? — Purple Pond

Are you getting older or in some kind of trouble? Both seem to have an effect on belief in God.

There seems to be a pattern in belief in the supernatural.

As young children you believe unquestioningly - taught by parents and preachers.

As you become adults you doubt. The world isn't a good place to find evidence for the divine. In fact I'd say it's full of counter evidence.

Then such adults run into trouble or age. As death closes in or danger knocks on the door we suddenly find our faith restored and start praying.

I hope you're not one of these people. I'm quite sure this is a genuine inquiry intended to find the real truth.

I too am on such a path and to be frank I haven't discovered anything worthwhile except the pattern I described above.

What is the truth then?

Hard to say given philosophers now seem to be quarrelling about the very meaning of truth. The question itself loses its force.

It's not that philosophy makes us doubt the map. In fact philosophy and science and all that we call knowledge make us question our very selves.

Everything is in dubious. Even the person who is doubting.

In such a landscape of complete skepticism it seems that to find truth, whatever that means, is nigh impossible.

That said how can a soldier doubt the bullet that kills him?

Perhaps Buddha was right in telling the victim of a poisoned arrow that he (victim) allow the Buddha to treat his wound rather than provide detailed information about the trajectory of the arrow, its construction and the background details of the man who shot him.

Perhaps you are like me or anyone else on a path to discovery but from what I've learned truth is not a person and doesn't care if it makes you happy or not. We should probably consider an old adage: truth is bitter.

Ironically enough I was contemplating doing a new thread called the dangers of extremism: atheism versus fundamentalism.

Meaning unfortunately if you are a positive atheist then one could argue that you've become or are considered an extremist, much like the fundamentalist. On the surface I know that sounds a bit disparaging however when you put yourself in a position of declaring a God doesn't exist, then it would be considered just another form of a religious belief system/Religion.

So when you asked the question whether there are any logical strategic arguments to support your cause, that's what you're left with.

Anti-slavery abolitionists were also considered extremists. It's not always a bad thing.

For sure there are exceptions. I'm not denying that. I probably should have clarified appropriately.

However in this instance, 911 comes to mind . We know that was a result of religious extremism or fundamentalism... .

The common element (to both sides) is human sentience. Einstein was quoted that essentially if it was not for that component of human existence there would be no religion.

Personally, I would advocate for Spirituality instead.

atheism versus fundamentalism — 3017amen

These are too easy targets, since each dishonestly claims truth for sure, 100%. To reclaim integrity, both would have to reduce to being agnostic.

Perhaps just do a thread on the probability for 'God' or against, since that's all people have to work with who don't want to sit on a fence.

logical strategic arguments — 3017amen

Yes, this is what I mean, in depth and having some meat.

Right on my brother !

Yeah there are so many threads going around in my head I don't know where to begin. I feel strongly about doing the tree of life new paradigm thread, so I'm torn right now. I want to make a case and not just ask a question since I feel really strongly about the need for us to embrace more of a so-called sophisticated thinking/process. People have been damaged emotionally from Fundy interpretation.

Anyway my short response to your comment is that in my studies and travels and experience there are more clues tipping the scales towards a suggestion of a designer universe than not.

Thank you again!

tree of life — 3017amen

One tree of life for all creatures? That seems to be well known.

designer universe — 3017amen

That could be a thread that doesn't just ask a question but promotes a position.

Fundy — 3017amen

joke: Fundy - Fundamentals - Fun with da mentals.

You present an argument against religious extremism, but I'm not sure that logic applies to atheism.

Sure in logical terms it's called positive atheism.

For example when an atheist makes a statement to declare that God doesn't exist they put themselves into an analogous ontological argument conundrum (and dubious position of defending same).

I'm sure you're familiar with purely a priori reasoning... . Deductive logic won't get you there. It's inductive logic and reasoning that is not only essential to science but also to many aspects of living life aka the human condition.

You're kind of all over the place here.

It's one thing to call atheism extremism, another to imply there is a connection between atheist extremism and theist fundamentalist violence, and then a totally other subject to talk about the supposed logical conundrums of atheist epistemology.

For example when an atheist makes a statement to declare that God doesn't exist they put themselves into an analogous ontological argument conundrum (and dubious position of defending same). — 3017amen

Yes, as truth-claimers either way will always be asked to show/prove their declarations in such a sure and final way that the sensible listeners have to drop all resistance and can't help to convert to the sure thing shown. I do realize that some, whose brains cannot learn or change, may still try to deny and cling to their unshowable position. Some still go for a flat Earth, even.

So, then, both black and white fiats of God or no God are extreme positions. It is no matter if either position leads to more or less violence. Any absolute position on any not showable subject will run into trouble, much of this self caused by the dishonest sureity proclaimed, for what opposes it will be seen to be not right, or evil, even, or at least as seeming to undermine the credibility of the sure thing by the very existence of some thinking otherwise. These kinds of 'goods' are flawed, as they produce fake 'evils'.

Yep, you got it Poetic Universe!!

You know someone said that all things are relative in life.... and your sentiments speak to that.

in a similar way it kind of reminds me of the law of attraction...know what I mean Vern LOL!?

Does that appear a little unsettling to you? Feel free to specifically ask me a question if you care to...

Does that appear a little unsettling to you? Feel free to specifically ask me a question if you care to... — 3017amen

Unsettling? Only in the sense of it being minorly annoying to try to have a conversation about x and then your interlocutor switching to y.

LOL, well let me help a little bit. The ontological argument for the existence of God posits God's existence through a priori reasoning alone.

Atheists posit God does not exist.

Does that help?

I understand that perfectly well. It has nothing to do with the violent nature of extremism you were purporting.

Are you sure about that?

In my travels I've seen atheists get pretty angry. And in my travels I've seen fundies get pretty angry.

However I would share your concern if it relates to religious wars throughout history.

law of attraction — 3017amen

Daydreams pierce the noise of consciousness,
To reveal that which is best for us; yes,
Mere aspiration halves realization;
What we have now was once a dream, no less.

Throughout the day, we’re living out the dream,
Drifting on air, aloft in the day-beam,
Causing, when condensing in night’s dark stream,
Many more such wondrous dreams, it would seem.

We construct the world that our dreams require,
One moulded closer to the heart’s desire.
In this world body of the soul inspired,
We’ll live life entire before we expire.

Close your eyes and realize the light within;
Allow visualization to begin;
This attracts into your life: dreams, wishes,
And desires—all that you would believe in!

Dreams become imagination’s command;
The impossible we now understand.
To know that dreams can come true makes them so.
A real fantasyland is being planned.

Success blossoms out of the thoughtful dream,
Grown from seeds of what life to us should seem,
Then bears forth fruit, healthy and delicious,
In the garden watered by the wishing stream.

I'm totally inspired Poetic Universe!

I love it!

In a similar vein, what would science be without a sense of wonder(?).

In fact that begs the question does a sense of wonderment confer survival in the jungle?

Or is it just Jungle Love LOL.
(Sorry, I could not refrain.)

wonderment — 3017amen

To future columns, we stretch our present row,
By a lifeline of tenuously spun vow.
Oh, how soon the weighted web begins to fail;
The only real time under our feet is now.

Breathe in all that’s good, breathe out all that’s bad;
Peace flows into you—it’s warm, wet, and glad.
Feel it spread throughout the body, then say,
‘This is the best life that I’ve ever had!’

Daydreams are filled with thoughts on promenade:
Wishes, fantasies o’er the mind cascade.
Listen well to these plans already made,
For by sundown the phantom shapes may fade.

World does not pass by; you pass through it.
Clear your being so the treasure may arrive;
This spirit sparkles of a different light,
The gemstones are of a different mine.

I've seen spiritualists and agnostics get pretty angry too. What's your point?

In fact I'd say it's full of counter evidence. — TheMadFool

Not you as well? :gasp:

Is this "evidence" of a standard that scientists or philosophers would consider acceptable? Or is it more of the 'there's no evidence for, so it must be false' type of (logically fallacious) reasoning? :chin:

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. In the context of our discussion about Fundy v. Atheism, think about what the OP was asking, and why he was asking for strategic guidance.

When it comes to debating Christian Apologetics, that anger and frustrated usually comes from the simple concept known as the 'sin of pride'.

That's another reason to choose inductive reasoning as a better approach.

Or another tool would be pondering natural selection, and the mysteries associated with the nature of things namely our consciousness. Or other Existential phenomena.

I'm guessing you are atheist so I assumed you've looked at all that...