If you believe atheism is already covered by "ideology", then nothing is changed by specifying it. — Srap Tasmaner

Atheism is not an ideology.

Atheism is not an ideology. — JerseyFlight

Then you would agree the word "atheism" should be added to the guidelines, right next to religion.

I want both sides gone. — Srap Tasmaner

Are both sides not living testaments (relics if you prefer) to the human story and how philosophy evolved and got to where it is now in the first place?

Religion- The adamant, dogmatic belief of something .. anything! Perhaps "proven" in one's own mind by a simple, flawed observation. And atheism- the skeptical, challenging belief of "hey, perhaps you're wrong and there's more to be discovered". An eternal and timeless yin and yang of the human psyche. It's quite beautiful if you ask me. And without? Well, I doubt we'd be doing much more than hunting wild beasts and retiring to a nice cave afterward.

In times before our own, the forces we could not understand or explain where attributed to the gods ie. "were divine". Lightning. Wind. Water. Fire. Earthquakes. Etc. Perhaps, the paranormal is simply the next chapter of this epic human story we can all proudly call ourselves a part of.

Talking about it, fine. Living it out in front of me, no thanks. There's a whole big internet out there.

Then you would agree the word "atheism" should be added to the guidelines, right next to religion. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely not. These are not equivalent, what makes you think they are? Further, and this is way more important, a quick dose of reality, are you claiming that there is a problem with Atheists coming on this forum trying to introduce the topic of religion in a polemical way? Because it seems to me that what's really going on, is that there's a bunch of Christians on here who are trying to sneak God into the picture, and they get refuted by Atheists. Religious delusion is not a virtue, it's dangerous. At what point did we forget this? I can't even think of anything that has had a more disastrous, suppressive effective on our species. An advanced species wouldn't even be having this conversation.

One group is trying to assert the validity of faith as a method for obtaining knowledge, the other group is proceeding according to philosophical tools, evidence and reason, and you're trying to claim there's an equivalency here?

polemical way? — JerseyFlight

The polemic strikes back. He can't get enough of this bullshit...

Overcome your resentment for theism Flight; be better than a simple ideological doctrinaire.

I still firmly believe it should be in the guidelines. If you believe atheism is already covered by "ideology", then nothing is changed by specifying it. — Srap Tasmaner

Precisely because it's a difference that won't really be all that much of a difference I'm rather, well, indifferent to the idea. Like, it strikes me as nominal is all. Still, I'll dangle it in the mod thread and see if anyone else bites.

Appreciate it.

Still, I'll dangle it in the mod thread and see if anyone bites. — StreetlightX

You are giving privileged status to delusion by validating false premises that characterize these positions as equivalent. Those who refute religious error are not harming the species, it is those who are bent on prolonging it through an unwarranted and romantic respect, who do harm to the species. There is more to the analysis here than just the assertion of a false equivalence. It's exceedingly strange that the refutation of error should be considered as some kind of malignant or hostile action, when it is actually the thing that contains the highest level of value. This is allowing the sophists to dictate the narrative. It is a way to poison the well against a strong polemic that one cannot refute. Others should speak out on this as well, something is very wrong here. Those who refute the ideology of God should not be considered the enemies of thought or man. Would Nietzsche then be banned from this philosophy forum? Come now, something is wrong here.

To quote Christopher Hitchens:

“One must have the nerve to assert that, while people are entitled to their
illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are
not entitled to impose them on others. Allow a friend to believe in a bogus
prospectus or a false promise and you cease, after a short while, to be a friend
at all. How dare you intervene? As well ask, How dare you not? Are you so
sure you know better? Ask yourself this question a thousand times, but if you
are sure, have the confidence and dignity to say so. Remember that saying
nothing is also a decision, and that the relativists and nonjudgmental have
made up their minds just as much, if not as firmly.”
Letters to a Young Contrarian, pg.82-83, MJF Books 2001

Because it seems to me that what's really going on, is that there's a bunch of Christians on here who are trying to sneak God into the picture, and they get refuted by Atheists. — JerseyFlight

Doesn't matter if it's Christians (again, there's many religions out there... they just seem to be your favorite for some reason) and God with Atheists or meta-physicists with the supernatural and by-the-book scientists or even multiverse theorists and other universes with other by-the-book scientists. It's the same thing. What is not proven, yet could be, and the philosophical ramifications and results said idea could bring. Very philosophical. Again, I'll agree- the stereotypical idea of an old fashioned "thumper" devoid of any and all logic is not suited for this forum. But. Come now. Philosophy is about new ideas and the effects they can have on society. Why preclude something of such historical and social magnitude?

Philosophy is about new ideas and the effects they can have on society. — Outlander

No it's not. It's not about making stuff up, it's about the power of negation. I have already made myself clear in this thread, I am not against philosophical theology, I am against cults, organized religion, as every sane, responsible human being should be. The reason why Christianity is emphasized is because that's what we deal with here in America and that's what there has been an influx of on this forum. Contrary to the status quo here, religion is not just some innocent belief system, it's a dangerous ideology that propagates delusion in the world at the expense of reality. No serious philosopher can remain neutral to this.

Not to defend religion or anything - I don't wish to swell the already formidable ranks of those who do that - but to take your approach to the relationship between religion and philosophy is to deny that one has anything to do with the other which appears to be false for the simple reason that nothing is not philosophy; after all philosophy is, among other things, an attitude, an attitude of unbiased neutrality. Philosophers bring this attitude to bear on everything under the sun. The scope of philosophy is the universe itself and religion is but one aspect of our universe.

Too, the historical marriage between religion and philosophy is an inequality - religion seems almost desperate to earn philosophical favor while philosophy has been steadily undermining religion.

If the religious are inclined to be philosophical, it's a sign that they, whoever they are, finally see the light, so to speak. Their attempts to philosophize religion is to be taken as an homage to philosophy, its rightful claim as one of the best available routes to the truth whatever that may be.

What maybe more problematic for you - given the views expressed in the OP which likely is just a passing thought - is not the philsophical believer but the believing philosopher. The philosophical believer may eventually join your ranks but the religious philsopher is the one thinning your crowd, if you're an atheist philosopher. The religious philosopher might be onto something and you'll never know if you decide not to engage them and the catch is one place you might meet religious philosophers is a forum like this.

Talking about it, fine. Living it out in front of me, no thanks. There's a whole big internet out there. — Srap Tasmaner

Great. I can speak in front of you. Living out the way I choose to live my life within the confines of the law, not so much. Well thankfully we have the law. You follow it, you don't mind me, it won't mind you.

The much more pressing question would be, do you believe the contributions of religion ie. "someone living out a religious life" are valid? That includes everything that is as it is as a result. You would seem to suggest it is not. Is this correct?

I'd like to mention that there is something called Christian Atheism.

One can have recourse to religious texts without claiming infallibility or divine inspiration for their authors, just as one can have recourse to Aesop's fables without believing in the Boy who cried 'wolf'. or the talking fox that claimed the grapes were sour.

Most of the Western philosophical tradition is so culturally enmeshed with Christianity and other religious traditions, that a rigorous policy of excluding God apologists would lead to the banishment of Descartes, Spinoza, Aristotle, Plato, and almost everyone in between. And may Shango's thunderbolt strike me if I lie.

philosophy is, among other things, an attitude, an attitude of unbiased neutrality.
...
If the religious are inclined to be philosophical, it's a sign that they, whoever they are, finally see the light — TheMadFool

There's the contradiction. You cannot approach philosophy with theological biases. If the point of philosophy to a theist is to prove that God exists, is good, is all powerful, and is responsible for everything we are, it is not philosophy at all.

That doesn't forbid philosophical discussion of whether God exists, what he might be like, the ethics of Jesus, etc. As you say, we can philosophise about anything.

Thank you! Oddly enough, deduction and mathematical truth's are basically one in the same. And so I wonder how tax laws, deductive reasoning mathematical truths and other forms of analytic's speak to meaning of life questions?

After all atheism is based on theism and logico deductive reasoning.

The one that leapt to mind for me was Kant!

The one that leapt to mind for me was Kant! — Srap Tasmaner

I already banned Kant for trolling on the old site.

I always suspected that was your doing.

which appears to be false for the simple reason that nothing is not philosophy — TheMadFool

?

after all philosophy is, among other things, an attitude, an attitude of unbiased neutrality. — TheMadFool

?

The scope of philosophy is the universe itself and religion is but one aspect of our universe. — TheMadFool

?

If the religious are inclined to be philosophical, it's a sign that they, whoever they are, finally see the light, so to speak. — TheMadFool

?

What maybe more problematic for you - given the views expressed in the OP which likely is just a passing thought - is not the philsophical believer but the believing philosopher. — TheMadFool

A problem, philosophical theology?

The philosophical believer may eventually join your ranks but the religious philsopher is the one thinning your crowd, — TheMadFool

Thinning my crowd?

The religious philosopher might be onto something and you'll never know if you decide not to engage — TheMadFool

This is far too general to be of any value, most especially when it comes to religion.

The question, it seems to me, is whether religion and all matters religious fall into the category of ideas. It is acceptable to think and talk about ideas as ideas, for all kinds of reasons. And as well acceptable to think and talk about the thinking about those ideas, as a philosophy of religion, aka theology.

But if in talking about religion or any matter of religion you're talking about something other than ideas, then I do not know what you're talking about, and I have many reasons to think you do not know what you're talking about either.

Let, then, that stand as a measure or standard. For those who wish to discuss either religion or theology as a matter of thinking and talking about ideas, there is the forum for them. Persons wishing to talk about religion as something other, let them make clear what they are talking about, or the post lacking that clarity and their author refusing to provide that clarity, let their post be deleted and them warned against repetition. And the standard itself shall be evidence. And hearsay is not evidence.

There's the contradiction. You cannot approach philosophy with theological biases. If the point of philosophy to a theist is to prove that God exists, is good, is all powerful, and is responsible for everything we are, it is not philosophy at all.

That doesn't forbid philosophical discussion of whether God exists, what he might be like, the ethics of Jesus, etc. As you say, we can philosophise about anything. — Kenosha Kid

Indeed, a theist who turns to philosophy with the sole aim of justifying his/her beliefs is guilty of rationalization but this doesn't devalue philosophy as such. In fact, it's like your rival learning and using your very own fighting techniques against you? What greater compliment than this for philosophy?

A problem, philosophical theology? — JerseyFlight

A philosopher who finds truth in religion is what you should keep an eye on. The believer who uses philosophy to further a religious agenda is not as problematic.

This is far too general to be of any value, most especially when it comes to religion. — JerseyFlight

I feel religion is a truly complex set of beliefs - rich in meaning embodied in rituals, tradition, narratives, symbolism, practices, myth, and emotions, to name a few - and being so is a veritable gold mine of sundry topics for philosophers to sink their teeth into. Not that this hasn't been done already but the effort, and I can only guess, is piecemeal, fragmentary. If one puts these scattered pieces together, a picture of religion may emerge that reveals a harmony and coherence hitherto unseen. In short, your dim view of religion is probably symptomatic of not being privy to such knowledge as I have alluded to above.

I feel religion is a truly complex set of beliefs — TheMadFool

Well then, who cares what philosophy has to say about it. A conceptual toy box that strikes your fancy. I'm not sure one can refute a hedonist.

Well then, who cares what philosophy has to say about it. A conceptual toy box that strikes your fancy. I'm not sure one can refute a hedonist. — JerseyFlight

In my humble opinion, philosophy, being, above all, an approach to issues, a method of discovering truths, refined over many generations of practitioners, is universal in scope. One could say philosophy is to know how to read a map, religion is just one map among countless others that can be read.

There is no responsibility or demarcation in philosophy? From what then does it distinguish itself? I have long understood philosophy to be criticism.

In my humble opinion, philosophy, being, above all, an approach to issues, a method of discovering truths, refined over many generations of practitioners, is universal in scope. One could say philosophy is to know how to read a map, religion is just one map among countless others that can be read. — TheMadFool

:100:

One could say philosophy is to know how to read a map, religion is just one map among countless others that can be read. — TheMadFool

Too pollyannaish, Fool. Philosophy problematizes how rationally or not 'maps are read, made or revised'; religion is just one irrational, or fantasy, map among countless others.

There is no responsibility or demarcation in philosophy? From what then does it distinguish itself? I have long understood philosophy to be criticism. — JerseyFlight

:up:

I believe it's necessary to point out that Christianity still has an exceedingly strong hold over a good portion of our species and its cultures. Because of this religion is embraced on emotive terms, totally void of objective, philosophical criticism. The emotive claim that is validated by so many emotional beings, is the claim that says, religious values are an example of transcendent intelligence. This is a tragic presumption that keeps the species locked down in primitive superstition. The truth is that all these values are themselves culturally constructed and created. This is what the contemporary thinker fails to see. When the religious man says, "you cannot do better, you had better be afraid of walking away from these," people fall in line with the presumption, failing to see that what is being referenced is the exact same thing that is being rejected! This is a masterful maneuver that seems to work every time.