No nihilism and its extra worldly imaginings required to account for meaning. Meaning is staring at you, immanent to every material presence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I like that you have identified what is commonly, and erroneously imputed to Nietzsche: that he promoted nihilism. His point was rather that Christian values are ultimately nihilistic, since they devalue our human nature which is replete with its own value(s).

And don't worry about Wayfarer's rude idiot dawg. :wink:

Ive not read any Satre that I recall. It doesnt seem like an actually existing god could be ignored like that. His presence would be felt and heard, the biblical god at least would stand for nothing less.

:cool:

And so say those who believe - his presence is felt and heard.

Even so, one must choose to follow, or not.

Who is DingoJones? That question is answered by the choices you make, not by what somehting else decides you are.

Well it really would be felt and heard if god actually existed. One good reason to be skeptical of gods existence...alot of us feel and here nothing from the guy.
So choices we make...how would determinism factor in there?

I’d have liked a middle ground Agnostic choice as that is where if fall.

In ethics, two points of view tend to be grounded in god, that of divine command theory and natural law theory, although the latter has atheistic variations.

As for where god comes into philosophy as a whole, answering for yourself “do you believe in god/a creator/creating force?” And “What is a god?” Is extremely important because it helps build a complete worldview. Learning about other interpretations of this is also helpful. I don’t have to be catholic to learn about Catholicism if it gives me an insight into that value structure.

Also, some areas of philosophy deal with studying fictional literature for the sake of gleaming insight about reality and if you’re an atheist the bible can always be read from this view point. An open but critical mind can read the bible cover to cover and find things they agree and disagree with no matter what religious view they take.

If I make the argument that: God doesn’t exist therefore no religion has value. Then I’m ignoring all the parts of a religions structure that don’t relate to god that can be studied. Religions are world views, god tends to be the grounding element to those world views. You can replace the grounding element with something else but the world view can still exist without god. For example: In Islam, charging interest on loans is considered usury and is forbidden. Sharia law, that is to say gods law (Torah translates to gods law too and Christians also have their own Gods law) contains a lot of rules surrounding finances and money. A lot of the negative bias toward Sharia comes from media only focusing on the punitive parts which make up less than 10% of sharia. I can safely say that I don’t agree with a lot of the punishments in sharia, but interest free loans sounds awesome to me.

Meaning is staring at you, immanent to every material presence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ineluctably so. 'Meaning' denotes that which matters - material that's relevant (i.e. significant) to at least one agent (e.g. her own body/life).

[p/s-materialism] provides no account of meaning. — Wayfarer

Even so, in what way or sense is this omission? limitation? ... "fallacious"?

... the basis of semiotics is that intentionality and signs (in Peirce’s sense) can’t be derived from, and aren’t reducible to, physical laws. — Wayfarer

So why bother assuming reductionism only to argue against it? (Oh, yeah, that's why :roll: ) Can't "reduce" e.g. a cake recipe to QFT with Feynmann diagrams, eigenstates, and whatthefucknot either. Big whup. Like most complex states-of-affairs and their predicates, Wayf, 'meaning' is emergent.



re: Sartre quote :up:

In a nutshell I understand theism as a failure of explanation: all (philosophical) theism as I understand it is of the 'God of the gaps' variety - in lieu of providing an immanent, naturalistic account of things, God or Gods are invoked as (non-)explanations. — StreetlightX

eff yeah :cool:

If god did exist then how could it be irrelevant to the human condition — DingoJones

Maybe not "irrelevant to the human condition", but "irrelevant to philosophy" at least, on my account, goes something like this: in order to answer questions like "Is there a God?" and "Should we do what he says?", we first have to be able to answer questions of forms like "Is there X?" and "Should we X?" more generally. Once you've done that, figured out some way to answer questions about what is or ought to be, then you have already built a philosophical system; all the philosophically important questions are answered. Now you can ask whether there's a God and whether you should do what he says, using that philosophy, and it might make a big practical difference in life, but it can't make any difference to the philosophy used to answer those questions.

I’d have liked a middle ground Agnostic choice as that is where if fall. — Mark Dennis

An atheist is just anyone who's not a theist, so if you're not a theist then you're an atheist. If you're "agnostic" in the sense of "I don't know if there's a god, maybe there is maybe there isn't, not at all sure", then you're not theist, and are therefore a kind of atheist. If you're "agnostic" in the sense of "I'm not completely certain that there's a god, but I think there is", then you're a theist, and therefore not an atheist.

In Islam, charging interest on loans is considered usury and is forbidden — Mark Dennis

This is a tangent from the topic of this thread but one that interests me: in old Catholic canon law, usury was forbidden too, which is why Jews got a reputation for being bankers in Christian countries (because being of a different religion, they weren't bound by those laws, so they were the only ones allowed to lend at interest in those countries). Catholics back then, and Muslims today, still had what were effectively loans at interest by using a combination of an interest-free loan, an insurance contract, and a rental, which hinged ultimately on the fact that renting is basically a form of lending at interest where the thing you're lending is not money; or conversely, lending at interest is just renting out money. The fact that you could effectively lend at interest even with the prohibitions, plus rising capitalist pressure to do away with the restriction, was a large part of why it was abolished in Christendom. As a kind of libertarian socialist myself, I'm really interested in this bit of history and economics, because I think that the enforcement of contracts of rent and interest is the main driver of the injustices of capitalism, and that by just doing away with that (having the state stop enforcing a kind of contract, not prohibiting anything), the free market would live up to much more of its mythic egalitarian potential. Explaining why should probably be the topic of another thread, though.

on the Tangent: I’ll let you know if I start a discussion on financial ethics. Glad it is of interest to you though!

As for theist, atheist and agnostic. I feel while atheist and theist are perfectly adequate to describing whether or not someone denies or acknowledges a god is too binary to get into the detail of the different theistic belief systems. For example, where would someone who doesn’t believe in a god but believes in Karma fall, or fate? Theist or Atheist? This is where I feel it is better to look upon these things like a spectrum. Pure Atheism on one side wherein things like fate, Karma, the force or the Tao are all denied, and pure theism on the other where belief in a conscious and wilful god are accepted. You have so much in between though, you have god as a collective conscious, god as a force, god as the universe, god as nature. So much more than just spiritual orphan on one side and do as the sky daddy says on the other. Don’t even get me started on modern Pantheists either.

You can believe in fate, karma, souls, all manner of supernatural stuff, and still not believe in gods, and therefore be an atheist. Pantheists etc are still kinds of theists. Atheism doesn’t necessarily have to mean naturalism or materialism, though vice versa probably does.

I used to be a naturalistic pantheist who considered myself neither theist nor atheist, BTW, until I recognized that the sense of “God” I affirmed was no different than anything atheists affirmed, and I was only setting up an unnecessary linguistic difference.

Just a minor item: you will find an irony in philosophy, like I did when studying all the domains ( Ethics, epistemology, metaphysics contemporary philosophy, ontology, etc.) where at some point a deity or God is mentioned in practically each and every one of those domains.

Maybe the question is why does Deity rear it's ugly head in virtually every intellectual/ abstract philosophical discussion (?).

That's not a rhetorical question. ( I didn't vote because I'm a Christian Existentialist.)

So yes, I think that's a good question in your OP

Maybe the question is why does Deity rear it's ugly head in virtually every intellectual/ abstract philosophical discussion — 3017amen

My first answer would be akin to @StreetlightX's: wherever there's an unknown in one's worldview, "God" is a tempting non-answer to insert. It's easy to hang the entirety of reality and morality on "it exists because the guy in charge said so, and you ought to do what he says". But start poking at that answer and things start unraveling fast. IMO, at least; the point of this thread isn't to argue for or against theism. But I expect that God is a central part of most theist philosophies for that reason, and an incidental part of atheist ones for the converse reason; and I started this thread because I was surprised to see so many people (or so it seemed at the time) who started from atheism and then built out from there, instead of the other way around.

Strictly speaking atheism doesn’t imply anything about anything besides God, so you can reject materialism and believe in something supernatural or spiritual but if that thing doesn’t count as God to you then you’re still an atheist. I’m more curious if you start off believing there’s nothing that counts as God and building a worldview from there or vice versa. — Pfhorrest

From some perspectives I might be considered atheist - I don't believe in the kind of God figure that a lot of atheists doubt and believers pray to. But what that figure is, is far from obvious - as Noam Chomsky said, 'tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in, and I'll tell you if I'm atheist.'

I'm more interested in the traditions of enlightenment in any case, but through studying those, I have come to re-interpret and understand better what belief in God means. And what I think it means, is a relationship, or better, a sense of relatedness, to the animating principle of the Universe (whether conceived of as spirit, logos, dharma, or Tao.) So for example, when Christians speak of 'a new life in Christ', I find that intelligible, even if I wouldn't speak in those terms myself.

I feel we need to maybe separate the terms “God” and “Deity”. I feel god implies an entity whereas a deity is that which is deified. For example: I ground my take on ethics on deifying the unborn generations of life as I believe grounding ethics this way leads to a purposeful life of preparing the environment toward the best outcomes for future generations.

So to me, it seems that all gods are deities, but not all deities are gods.

I have a feeling the OP may have meant something more akin to asking about how important your cosmogonic/cosmological perspective - in the broadest terms - is to your philosophical thoughts?

If not then I have no answer because the question makes no sense to me in the manner it has been framed. If so, then I would say it is something that certainly comes to the fore of my musings.

I have a particularly open view toward ‘theism’ and view it as representing something innately human. Theism has intrigued me for a long time, but there isn’t anything particularly interesting about atheism, it’s just a perspective that generally prefers to bring reason and empirical facts to bear when looking for an understanding of the cosmos (pragmatic and deflective of of general cosmogonic thought - mostly).

I certainly see ‘religions’ as a very interesting window into something strange and enigmatic embedded in the human psyche. I certainly don’t see rationality in believing in some unproven deity though; make-believe deity? I see the value in that, but I assume that theists don’t consider their deity/deities to be ‘make-believe’ and in saying this be clear that I see great value in uncovering this mysterious inclination.

Note: My position is that religious practices/institutions rose from an innate mnemonic technique that has pushed humanity to extraordinary heights. Somewhere along the way the techniques, being what they were, morphed from emotionally charged technical systems into tools for political force and/or misuse, misconception and the inevitable emotional prompt overcoming the carefully laid out systems. Now we’ve broken cleanly away from oral traditions (and did so a long time ago) we’re mostly blind to understanding the power and might of human memory - pretty much all ‘occultism’ is wrapped up in this. It doesn’t take much scratching to see what lies under the surface (if you’re willing to look).

As far as my philosophical understanding is concerned, it is the rejection of the dichotomy of theism/atheism on contextual grounds which adds weight to the philosophical deconstruction of terms like 'evidence' and 'existence'.

Thank you!

I didn't vote because I'm a Christian Existentialist — 3017amen

How is that not just an obvious vote for one of the theist options? I think I would expect the second, if you’re the usual Kierkegaardian “confronting the absurd first, leap of faith in response to that” type.

Either it is reasoning within a system, or else about a system, because in all other cases it is just system-less bullshit.

My life experience says that everything that makes sense is in one way or another structured as a system. So, what would I pick: A religious system or the atheist non-system?

In the end, atheism does not build any system. Atheism only rejects religious systems, without building anything else instead.

You see, I also reject particular systems. I deeply resent Windows. So, I use Linux. I have contempt for the fiat banking system. So, I save my money in bitcoin. An atheist also dislikes particular things, but he does not propose or use any alternative.

• An atheist would say: Do not use operating systems. Not Windows and not Linux (nor MacOSX). Use nothing, because all operating systems are bad.
• question: But how will you run your programs in that case?
• Atheist: Well, we do not need to run programs. Using a program would cause us to use an operating system, and therefore, programs are also bad.

In fact, an atheist will eventually, and grudgingly, still try to secretly run programs (=draw moral conclusions), but without using an operating system, but then his system-less bullshit will simply fail to take off. He will never admit that, however, because he has already declared that running programs (=drawing moral questions) is bad; all of that, without actually having a system to determine what is good or bad.

This old atheism of mine is merely a consequence of (my) philosophizing. — 180 Proof

My atheism is a consequence of (a) not being at all indoctrinated with religion as a kid, and then (b) as a mid-teen, hearing some religious views finally and saying, "Wait--you can't be serious!" :lol:

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. — Some Theist

"Inherent meaning" is not the same thing as meaning in the semantic sense, is it? When I assign meaning to a term or to something like a visual artwork by making mental associations, there's nothing inherent about that, is there? Maybe we could say that the ability to think about things meaningfully is inherent in us, ceteris paribus (there can easily be exceptions due to medical conditions, for example), but isn't that different than "Inherent meaning"?

My atheism is a consequence of (a) not being at all indoctrinated with religion as a kid, and then (b) as a mid-teen, hearing some religious views finally and saying, "Wait--you can't be serious!" — Terrapin Station

Ditto here.

I am completely convinced that god could exist. Or that he does not exist. Either way.

The problem for me starts when people claim knowledge what god is, wants, wants of us, can do, will do. These are not known to people, whether god exists or not. So why can't the religious see that religions potentially have nothing to do with god, but are social superstructures, that help society to get along?

I don't think society and humans are building a technological god; we are, instead, one-by-one, replacing those institutions and ideals which we used to use to sustain society, by replacing ideals and fantasies with real things that do the same things for us.

I am completely convinced that god could exist. — god must be atheist

That's not at all my disposition, though. To me, it strikes me as a completely absurd, "random," insane-sounding notion.

In fact, an atheist will eventually, and grudgingly, still try to secretly run programs (=draw moral conclusions), but without using an operating system, but then his system-less bullshit will simply fail to take off. He will never admit that, however, because he has already declared that running programs (=drawing moral questions) is bad; all of that, without actually having a system to determine what is good or bad. — alcontali

Again, atheism isn't a claim about anything. It's certainly not something that forwards normatives about anything. It's just a term for a lack of one specific belief.

In the end, atheism does not build any system. Atheism only rejects religious systems, without building anything else instead. — alcontali

For the sake of discussion, I could skip over the error that's already been pointed out here (atheism is not a category of system, it is a disposition people have), and presume you mean that atheists don't tend to build other systems instead.

But if so, I still don't understand what you could possibly mean by this. To take morality (the system you alluded to) there's dozens of atheistic moral systems (moral systems which do not involve God), in fact probably more than there are religious ones. So why aren't these counting in your estimations?

How is that not just an obvious vote for one of the theist options? I think I would expect the second, if you’re the usual Kierkegaardian “confronting the absurd first, leap of faith in response to that” type. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for asking. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The traditional theist is typically going to default to fundamentalism. Just like the atheist wiil default to positive Atheism in justifying their belief system.

Essentially since I view God as an ineffable experience and a genderless metaphysical being (spiritual), it would not fit within your/that criterion/paradigm.

Maybe the question is why does Deity rear it's ugly head in virtually every intellectual/ abstract philosophical discussion.

The reason why I asked that question is different from the answer that you gave ' insert God ' here.

As I alluded to, that old paradigm is part of traditional fundamentalism. Personally I just don't insert God.

In short, I look at physical and nonphysical phenomena, objective and subjective criteria, among other things to arrive at my leap of Faith.

(Otherwise Apophatic or negative theism would be the criteria I would use to put my faith into words.)

This old atheism of mine is merely a consequence of (my) philosophizing.
— 180 Proof

My atheism is a consequence of (a) not being at all indoctrinated with religion as a kid, and then (b) as a mid-teen, hearing some religious views finally and saying, "Wait--you can't be serious!" :lol: — Terrapin Station

And my philosophizing began in the 10th year of a 12 year regimen of mandatory biblical studies & church history in Dominican & Jesuit parochial schools with nearly the same sudden short sharp shock: "Wait--you can't be serious!" :halo:

But if so, I still don't understand what you could possibly mean by this. To take morality (the system you alluded to) there's dozens of atheistic moral systems (moral systems which do not involve God), in fact probably more than there are religious ones. So why aren't these counting in your estimations? — Isaac

Is there one example of a documented, atheist system for morality with at least some followers?

Is there one example of a documented, atheist system for morality with at least some followers? — alcontali

Utilitarianism and Kantianism both make no reference to gods and so are entirely practicable by atheists.