Comte and positivism came well after the 'Age of Enlightenment' during the laissez-faire early Industrial Era. Besides, the sciences have yet to exorcize from the human mind any of its blinkered delusions. And, let's not forget, Wayf, philosophy began as a speculative and naturalizing critique of / alternative to 'religious myths, mysteries & magical thinking' in ancient India, ancient China & ancient Greece, respectively, millennia before the advent of modern experimental sciences. Science, good sir, is not Baba Yaga; science is what hunts down, captures, euthanizes & dissects Baba Yaga. :death: :flower:

Philosophy has a common border with both science and religion while being distinct from either. Christianity tried to drag it into its territory, a lot of people try and drag it the other way, back into science. It’s neither, but in our culture the scientific undercurrent is predominant.

Agreed. I fancy the imagery of 'religions are the ancestors' of philosophy and 'the sciences are her descendents'.

Or an arboreal metaphor: religion are old seeds scattered by blowing seasons; philosophy sprouts an ever outward-downward digging roots system of understanding; and its trunk grows science which spreads sunward manifold splayed formal/empirical branches, garlanded and heavy with historical leaves & artistic fruits; the ground in all directions around the tree remains covered with fallen seeds and waiting dirt as fractal constellations wheel over head like spiral rivers of atoms blinking in the void.

Yes, Wayf, related and distinct, but, as with all thing, the future always rewrites the past, descendents always reinterpret ancestors, and Ye shall know them roots by their fruits. Science barely ever knows; but only philosophy understands. A bird flies higher with a bellyful of seeds. :fire:

Beautiful writing. :pray:

Ty.

Not only that, try to prove that atheism (as I argue it, not as you define it) is false. :wink: — 180 Proof

Good morning everyone! I'm excited for the challenge. Let me just say I'll make a Muhammad Ali prediction, and knock 180 out in the third round! And remember, I'll "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can't hit, what your eyes can't see.”

I have a lot to say about who I would pick for a moderator (since this site is woefully full of angry atheists) but I'll get to that later with specifics.

As I said I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Atheism and its belief systems are not logical. With that, what is your definition you propose that describes your Atheism?

My first Prof. of Religious Studies was old school - religion was a phenomenon to be studied like pinning butterflies to a board. — Wayfarer

Really old school apparently.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (4 BC – AD 65)

I used to think that consciously using religion like a tool was a relatively new phenomena, but maybe it was like that from the start?

BTW all,

Please don't let my challenge to 180 derail the other thoughts that were going on in this thread because obviously Einstein had other thoughts and theories similar to those in the OP. For example, his God who doesn't play dice!

The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself.

Let me just say I'll make a Muhammad Ali prediction, and knock 180 out in the third round! — 3017amen

Personally, I've got the feeling that 180 has lost already. But I think it might prove difficult to find impartial moderation on this forum.

The Christians are a blight on the forum — Banno

claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.

These merit deletion or banning. — Banno

I could be wrong, but you might find yourself banned before you even know it ....

Caught up in the excitement of the moment, I shot off my mouth a little too much. You're the challenger, 3017, so you define the position you're taking issue with and I will defend it as best as I'm able. I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ??? – so that @Banno or whomever moderates the festivities has a clear topic within which to keep us both like specimens buzzing around inside the same flybottle.

Yep definitely on both accounts I agree. There are a lot of juvenile actors on this site. But that's okay.

Not to sound presumptuous but Jesus was persecuted for a reason :joke: And just as prophetic, this too is nothing new under the sun.

The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself. — Fooloso4

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?

I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument.

Once again I will prove that your Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. To that end, here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?

Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Point well taken!

It looks like he's trying to wriggle his way out already:

I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ??? — 180 Proof

Any moderator agreed on by us both will also be judged by the audience as to whether s/he moderates fairly. The only relevant requirement is 'demonstrably informed, patient, judgment' which a number of members more than show, IMO, like @Banno or yourself, among others. I'd accept such a moderator so qualified who is also an avowed believer; why shouldn't my opponent do likewise the other way? Given our particular history, without moderation this debate could descend in to a circle-jerking shitshow real quick which would be of no use to anyone. Just my 2 shekels.

No, but that will suffice for (A) weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend.

I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument. — Fooloso4

Given that according to at least one moderator The Philosophy Forum considers Christians and other believers to be a "blight", I think we can imagine what that decision will be.

Perfect! Like I said earlier I'm on RNR right now so if it's okay with you let's begin our debate on Tuesday! In the meantime we can think about whether we want a moderator, or just open a thread on our own that's (voluntarily) restricted.

By the way, just an ancillary note. If you feel the emotional need in the debate to continue with your usual ad hominem, which is certainly your freedom of choice, do you think that will strengthen or weaken your case,?

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. — praxis

I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder.

Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?

I did not say wise guidance. Note the three separate terms in Seneca's quote. the people, the wise, and the rulers. Philosophers from Plato to Machiavelli to Nietzsche have recognized the importance of religion for the people.

I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.

My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control.

I'm for a moderator. Rendezvous Tuesday it is. Have one in mind by then, 3017; let's not waste each other's time putting on a shitshow without moderation. Enjoy your RnR. :up:

Wolves, etc sure would agree with that statement. :yum:

I thought Banno was moderating? I assumed there was some PMing going on...
You guys assuredly need a moderator, complete waste of time otherwise, you guys might as well just keep snipping at each other in this thread if you opt for no moderator.

antitheism — 180 Proof

Don’t really have the gist of this term. Opposed to all theistic concepts?

Once again I will prove that your Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. — 3017amen

Let this be the proposition: Resolved, That atheism is not logical. For, 3017. Opposed, 180

"Associated belief systems" left out because who knows what they are.

Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism.

Follow the link I gave in the post you quoted from.

Any moderator agreed on by us both will also be judged by the audience as to whether s/he moderates fairly. The only relevant requirement is 'demonstrably informed, patient, judgment' which a number of members more than show, IMO, like Banno or yourself, among others. I'd accept such a moderator so qualified who is also an avowed believer; why shouldn't my opponent do likewise the other way? Given our particular history, without moderation this debate could descend in to a circle-jerking shitshow real quick which would be of no use to anyone. Just my 2 shekels. — 180 Proof

As long as you can agree on a moderator. The way things often go my concern is that a moderator would be needed to moderate the disagreement over who is to moderate.

I think it sensible that you do not think a moderator's personal beliefs should disqualify them.

I think it sensible that you do not think a moderator's personal beliefs should disqualify them. — Fooloso4

3017 wants to debate logic. Not a subject soluble in personal belief.

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders.
— praxis

I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder. — Fooloso4

I’ll answer it. Apparently they were something like the following before wise men domesticated them.



How the mighty have fallen. :sad:

I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.

My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control. — Fooloso4

You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested.