The problem is that "such ideas" are arguably, the foundation of society; and here's where the atheist must falter - short of an alternate higher power in which to invest ultimate authority. — counterpunch

I have not problem living as an atheist in a society that doesn't rely as much upon any religion or God as nations like the US does. Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. It's the Nietzchian fear of nihilism. But in a society that isn't as heavily relying on God or religion, society works anyway. In Sweden, there's not a lot of Christianity as any kind of foundation. Traditions like Christmas and Easter aren't celebrated with any God "present", but instead celebrated for celebration's sake, no underlying values are forced upon the people, they celebrate as a chance to have a good time with their friends and family. Religion has disappeared from the celebration and it has become something else, only having words linger from the religious roots.

So there's no reason for any religious foundation at all. Moral philosophy can easily replace commandments, and probably do a better job at it since it's always under scrutiny without being called heresy.

The only people who think that a society can't exist without a religious foundation, are the ones within such a religious framework. It's a usual theist argument that society needs religion and faith, but every time we have true atheism as the foundation in society, it's actually a lot more peaceful and rational. The common counterargument from theists then points out Leninist and Stalinist communism as an example of atheistic societies, but this is just false. Not only is it a simplification of Marxism, since Lenin and Stalin corrupted those ideas, but the key factor is that both Stalin and Lenin replaced God as a religious figure.

science doesn't actually rule out the existence of God. — counterpunch

As I've said, atheism is about logical reasoning as a foundation, not proving God's lack of existence. If anything, in philosophy, the burden of proof is on the theist side and has been forever. Agnosticism acknowledges the possible existence of God, without any logical reasoning behind it, that's not atheism. Which is a key point as to why I say that atheism has nothing to do with a lack of belief, it has to do with logic, reason, and being rational as a foundation. Anything supernatural, religious or similar isn't even on the table for atheists because there's no rational reasoning behind it. Being agnostic requires you to entertain a part of faith in God as a possibility, which doesn't exist for an atheist.

Any method which declines to challenge it's own fundamental assumptions is not philosophy, but instead merely ideology. It's not reason and logic to refuse to examine and challenge the qualifications of reason and logic. — Foghorn

That's what epistemology is. The true philosophical antithesis of theism.

In atheism the core (blind faith in reason) is very rarely touched. Most atheists don't even know it's there. There's typically far more doubt honestly expressed in theism than in atheism. — Foghorn

No, because everything is eventually explained by "God" or religion in some way. "Blind faith in reason" also doesn't exist, it's the very foundation of epistemology to question how we reason. To say that atheists have blind faith in reason is straw-manning the concept of atheism.

religion is more realistic than atheism about the human condition, and more compassionate in serving that reality. This not because theists are smarter, but only because they've been doing their thing far longer. — Foghorn

It's only realistic for primal people that try to figure out the world without any way of rationally explain what is happening around them. That theists have been doing it for far longer is also a fallacy and not in any support of any conclusion you make. We can actually say that rational reasoning is older since most current religions are younger than western philosophy. But the people of power in religion throughout history snuffed out anyone challenging that power. This is why the world has moved towards wide atheistic adoption in such a short span of time because the enlightenment era was more powerful than the church and other religious institutions. By 2035 it's expected by metrics that over half the world's population will be atheists. So if religion and theism is more "correct" for the human condition, why have the atheistic worldview exploded in numbers, and will continue exponentially? When lifting the fact that this is happening globally in many different religions and worldviews, it kind of speaks to the opposite of what you are saying about the "human condition".

Maybe it's just that religion is easier to use to control people's knowledge and also is easier to adopt when there's no explanation for an unexplained event. So in a world where these things were more common, religion was more common. In the age of reason we live in today, the old truths start to crumble easily.

Here's the evidence...
To this day, religion continues to thrive in every time and place. It's been doing so for thousands of years. That is, religion is a "creature" very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Natural selection is demonstrating the power of religion to anyone willing to listen to the evidence. — Foghorn

This is not evidence at all. As per what wrote above. People are prone to pattern-seeking in their environment, we are easily fooled by what we don't know. That doesn't mean we are "made for religion", it just means we are stupid until we find mental tools to bypass those biases and fallacies when thinking of the world. And we did, it took some thousands of years to fine-tune those tools and we've just begun to use them. The enlightenment era was like inventing the wheel, we invented rational tools that wiped away the necessity for religious views as factual.

In my view you make a common mistake by trying to include a whole world view under the rubric of atheism. It only pertains to theism, nothing more. Over 30 years I've certainly met more than my share of atheists who believe in fortune telling and astrology. The idea that logic or reason is involved is a myth. It pertains to those atheists who are theorised. — Tom Storm

If someone believes in something in the same way as believing in God, then however you define atheism it fails to apply to them. Lack of belief? Nope, they believe in astrology and fortune-telling. Reason and logic as a foundation? No, they don't question the legitimacy of astrology and fortune-telling.

Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. It's like racists who say "I'm not a racist" when they clearly are. I don't see a reason to muddy the waters of what defines an atheist, because that's a smörgårdsbord for theists to muddy the waters of definitions.

If we are to have a clear definition of atheism it needs to be what I propose. Anyone who believes in something without any logic or rational reasoning for it, is simply not an atheist. Otherwise, what would an atheist be called in contrast with the concept of the spaghetti monster? I can't be an atheist and believe in that. Atheism is a consolidation of all reason and logic against any kind of belief in something that doesn't have that as a foundation, regardless of God or fortune-telling nonsense.

Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief — Trinidad

Epistemology is an entire field for that. Try it.

And most atheists do not live their lives purely by logic and reason. That's impossible. — Trinidad

No, it's not. Having a hypothesis is not having belief. If I say I "believe" in something, I do it because I have sufficient data supporting that there's significant reason to do so.

It's only impossible for those who have been taught otherwise. I have no problem living my life based on logic and reason. It doesn't change that I can feel emotions and have experiences that are profound, I just don't apply fantasy concepts to those things. If people grow up with religious concepts I understand that this is a problematic way of thinking, but our upbringing wires our brains and unwiring them is not easy at all. Saying that atheists can't live by logic and reason is like saying people can't live by religious ideas, they can, and so can atheists live by not applying fantasy to the unkown.

And the believers in rationality just assume rationality can explain everything. Whence and why this faith? — Trinidad

No, they don't, they accept that there are things yet to be explained, but they don't produce fantasies to explain things for them before they have any evidence of truth or logic for a deduction. They accept things to be unknown. We don't know what dark matter is, we've seen a presence of something. A theist might conjure up fantasies that dark matter is God for some reason, but an atheist just accepts that we don't know yet what dark matter is. Both can look at the dark matter as mysterious, but one of them doesn't jump to conclusions.

How you describe rationality and reason is the common strawmanning that theists do in order to undermine the legality of atheistic concepts. But there are no problems living with rational thought, reason, and logic. None.

@Christoffer Epistemology you say? Is there any agreement or conclusions in that field of philosophy?
If not,your whole post is moot.
And to be honest,you sound just as dogmatic and ill informed as a fundamentalist.

Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. — Christoffer

You are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Atheism is without theism. It pertains to one claim only (theism) and is not a system. It says nothing about any other irrational beliefs the person might hold. You're conflating a belief with an epistemology. The ideal atheist may well be a secular humanist who privileges reason and holds to no superstition but that is a wholly separate matter.

Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. — Christoffer

Most of the critiques of religion arise right out of a moralism which was given to western culture by the Jews. The Christians then became the leading salesmen of such moralism (not to be confused with being morally superior). So many atheists think they can just pull the plug and walk away from these thousands of years of history. It doesn't work that way.

An example...

I was raised Catholic. I made the choice to leave the church over 50 years ago. I had the option, the choice, to stop attending services, and be a critic of the Vatican etc. That much we can do.

But I can't stop thinking like a Catholic, that is, being interested in the kinds of things Catholics are interested in (thus my comments here) because that doesn't arise from my personal choice, but from many centuries of Catholic DNA up my family tree. That's built in. We don't just turn it off with the flip of a switch.

I have no problem living my life based on logic and reason. — Christoffer

Except, if you are an atheist, your life is not based on logic and reason. At least not that part of it.

Atheism is not reason. Atheism is an ideology which competes with religious ideology.

Epistemology you say? Is there any agreement or conclusions in that field of philosophy?
If not,your whole post is moot.
And to be honest,you sound just as dogmatic and ill informed as a fundamentalist. — Trinidad

I don't see an argument here? Just, "oh, you don't have any answers within epistemology, so you are wrong", and "you are just an ill-informed fundamentalist."

I don't care how I sound or people view me. Make your argument.

You are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. — Tom Storm

You don't seem to know what the true Scotsman fallacy is. If I define atheism as having a foundation of logic and rational reasoning instead of just a lack of belief in God, that incorporates everyone with a belief that doesn't have a logical foundation for it. Hence, it includes these people. The Scotsman fallacy is if I just say "they aren't true atheists" and don't provide any foundation for that claim, which I have.

Atheism is without theism. It says nothing about any other irrational beliefs the person might hold. — Tom Storm

"It says"? What says? The dictionary? If I question the common definition or layman definition of atheism as being incomplete and include all types of belief and not just God in the equation, then who cares what "it says". I say, I question and I argued for it. What you do is the same kind of "bible says" argument here. But about atheism.

The ideal atheist may well be someone who privileges reason and holds to no superstition but that is a wholly separate matter. — Tom Storm

The ideal atheist is in my argument the normal atheist. People are prone to label themselves however they want. But if someone says they're now an atheist when stopping to worship god but starts to worship dead deities, new age, or fortune-telling, they are not really doing anything but replacing one faith with another. It doesn't work when defining what atheism is.

Most of the critiques of religion arise right out of a moralism which was given to western culture by the Jews. The Christians then became the leading salesmen of such moralism (not to be confused with being morally superior). So many atheists think they can just pull the plug and walk away from these thousands of years of history. It doesn't work that way. — Foghorn

No, they can't, we all live under the weight of history, good or bad. But what does that prove? You basically just say that we are a product of history. Ok, so what? Doesn't mean that moral philosophy isn't better than morality from a religious text. It more or less means that we ditch the books and find out for real what was good or bad in old teachings, or invent new ones where bad and old ones lacked.

But I can't stop thinking like a Catholic, that is, being interested in the kinds of things Catholics are interested in (thus my comments here) because that doesn't arise from my personal choice, but from many centuries of Catholic DNA up my family tree. That's built in. We don't just turn it off with the flip of a switch. — Foghorn

This I absolutely agree with. This is why I think it's good that the bloody history of religion is going out the door so that new generations can grow out without being programmed into this. But it also doesn't mean that we lose history. We can find interest in the old pantheons of the greek and those stories fine, we can find the pantheon of the Edda to be wonderful, without having belief in those things. The same is true about Christianity, Islam etc. Nothing of these religions will be lost, or erased. I think that we might even have more appreciation for the cultural mark on history if we leave the faith behind. I'm neither Christian or Muslim, but when I was in the Anna Sofia mosque in Istanbul, it was a profound experience seeing Christian and Islam design and art in that vast architecture. The experience can be enormous even if faith and belief in God is gone.

Except, if you are an atheist, your life is not based on logic and reason. At least not that part of it.

Atheism is not reason. Atheism is an ideology which competes with religious ideology. — Foghorn

Ok, explain how I cannot live my life like this, this will be interesting. Because I'm very well acquainted with self-reflection. Shoot.

@Christoffer Epistemology has no foundations,no conclusions. So you just have faith in reason.
In reality you are worshipping the ideological biographies of dead philosophers.

Epistemology has no foundations,no conclusions. So you just have faith in reason.
In reality you are worshipping the ideological biographies of dead philosophers. — Trinidad

You make no sense now. I question how much you actually know about philosophy.

@Christoffer Typical ad hom clichéd response.
Where is the epistemological justification for rationality?
Have you not read your plato? The meno?
Justified true belief stands on an infinite regress unless you have axioms. And what are these axioms and are they
correct or ideological?

Where is the epistemological justification for rationality? — Trinidad

Epistemology is reasoning and logically examining the nature of knowledge and how to know. It was an answer to this:

Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief — Trinidad

In epistemology, that's much of what the main questions are about. It examines how we know things, how we can be certain. In any attempt, within an epistemological discussion, to try and justify experience and belief as being superior to reason and logic, it fails. It's the answer to your question.

Have you not read your plato? The meno? — Trinidad

Have you read any of the philosophers past the enlightenment era?

@Christoffer Nietzsche,Wittgenstein,foucault,William James,and others.
So any epistemological proofs for reason?

Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. It's the Nietzchian fear of nihilism. — Christoffer

All civilisations are built on religious foundations; because attributing moral authority to God, is how hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form the first multi-tribal societies - about 35,000 years after we find evidence of truly human intelligence in the archaeological record.

This was site of Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - not the strong fooled by the weak, but a translation from morality inherent to the structural relations of the kinship tribe, to objectivised social values, attributed to God. Thus, the natural obligation upon anyone hacking away at the pillars of moral authority is that they have some adequate alternative - and this politically correct secular relativism is neither one thing nor another.

The only people who think that a society can't exist without a religious foundation, are the ones within such a religious framework. It's a usual theist argument that society needs religion and faith, but every time we have true atheism as the foundation in society, it's actually a lot more peaceful and rational. The common counterargument from theists then points out Leninist and Stalinist communism as an example of atheistic societies, but this is just false. Not only is it a simplification of Marxism, since Lenin and Stalin corrupted those ideas, but the key factor is that both Stalin and Lenin replaced God as a religious figure. — Christoffer

I would raise Stalin and Mao as examples of atheist societies butchering their populations on a scale that make Hitler look like an amateur genocidal nutter! Exactly that, and they're actual examples - to compare to your purely hypothetical atheist societies, you claim are always more peaceful. Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment?

As I've said, atheism is about logical reasoning as a foundation, not proving God's lack of existence. If anything, in philosophy, the burden of proof is on the theist side and has been forever. — Christoffer

That's some myopic logic, don't you think? I cannot accept that's how this question presents itself to people. I think maybe, that's how you post-rationalise your deeper motives, but I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God, and so concluding "the burden proof is with the theist, and that shall be an end of the matter!" Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function!

God debates are like dancing. There's a series of steps that everyone has memorized, and it's fun to get together on the dance floor and do the dance yet again.
There's no crime in it. Life is short and fun is good. It's just not philosophy, that's all. — Foghorn

This may be true, but it scants the history. Excepting the murders of the xxth century, and a few of the xixth, religion is the great justification for murder on the planet, men, women, and children. Not the only one, just the greatest.

Beyond, then, the candlelit celebration of the festive dance, just at the edge where light falls into darkness, watches all the horror gathered with twisted faces and baleful eyes. And even today at the dance are some - many - already committed to your murder should the order be given.

So any epistemological proofs for reason? — Trinidad

What proof are you talking about? You asked if there were anything that "examines" reason and logic, if that is the foundation for atheism. And the answer is epistemology. What proof is it you are after?

This was site of Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - not the strong fooled by the weak, but a translation from morality inherent to the structural relations of the kinship tribe, to objectivised social values, attributed to God. Thus, the natural obligation upon anyone hacking away at the pillars of moral authority is that they have some adequate alternative - and this politically correct secular relativism is neither one thing nor another. — counterpunch

Nietzsche's inversion of values refers to how Christianity reverses the natural into the opposite. It stems from his contempt for Christianity. Stating the moral system is based on "the contempt of man". The fear I'm referring to is the fear that when a structural moral system is dismantled, however faulty it is, will eventually create a great nihilism within the people if they do not actively examine ethics and form new systems in its place. And what have we've been doing throughout the 20th century? It's exactly this. It was even fueled by the examination of moral decay in Nazi Germany. Almost the entire part of post-WWII philosophy around ethics has revolved around figuring that shit out.

I would raise Stalin and Mao as examples of atheist societies butchering their populations on a scale that make Hitler look like an amateur genocidal nutter! Exactly that, and they're actual examples - to compare to your purely hypothetical atheist societies, you claim are always more peaceful. Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment? — counterpunch

Here comes the classic guilt by association that is such a drag to always have to explain. The Stalins and Lenins and communist leaders who conducted murder and terror on their people did so under a kind of religious worship of themselves. They didn't build upon an atheist foundation, they built their society around themselves. These are dictators who don't have much to do with Marxism or atheism. Narcissistic personalities who brainwashed their people into a pseudo-religious politic surrounding themselves as deities. Much like how North Korea and Kim Jong Un act right now. I don't see much atheism going around these people. The only thing is that they don't have any old religions present, but that's not the same as an atheistic foundation for their society. I even touched upon this in this very thread in a previous post that you might have missed.

Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment? — counterpunch

So this becomes the guilt by association. The classic theist argument that because they claimed to be atheists or built upon it, therefor atheistic societies are evil. It's a stupefyingly bad conclusion that is a giant fallacy. Check how heavily secular societies in the world today fare against heavily religious ones, there's your answer and data.

I have the data on my side of this argument.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies

As University of London professor Stephen Law has observed, “if declining levels of religiosity were the main cause of…social ills, we should expect those countries that are now the least religious to have the greatest problems. The reverse is true."

That's some myopic logic, don't you think? I cannot accept that's how this question presents itself to people. I think maybe, that's how you post-rationalise your deeper motives, but I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God, and so concluding "the burden proof is with the theist, and that shall be an end of the matter!" Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function! — counterpunch

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Otherwise I will, in classic terms, claim there's a teapot revolving around the sun between Venus and Mercury. You can't say there's not, you have to prove there's no teapot there! Burden of proof is on the one claiming something, claiming gods existence needs to be proven, the burden of proof is still on theists making claims that they can't prove. This is basic stuff.

I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God — counterpunch

Not in nations that are heavily religious, which I would say even the US is considered to be. In nations like Sweden, many grow up secular, without any concepts of God other than fairy tale concepts of the bible in the same manner as pantheon stories of the Greeks. So what you imagine is irrelevant, we have secular nations in the world where God isn't as common as in religious countries so the concepts in epistemology can definitely come before any concept of God. What you describe is just a projection of your own situation, not the truth.

Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function! — counterpunch

I understand its function, where it comes from, how religion and belief evolved, but God and religion is still irrelevant to humanity if we have good non-religious ethics system in place (which we have) and live our lives with self-reflection, skepticism, and a sense of logic and rational reasoning.

The concept of it being necessary is only true for those who cannot imagine a society without it. But some people live their life without it, both on the micro and macro level. This is an undeniable fact. I live my life like this, I have friends living their life like this, and Sweden is considered a secular nation with a very high quality of life. Compare that to heavily religious nations in the world. Check the link I provided.

It's not wise to overvalue the importance of religion without knowing how secular and less religious societies fare.

@Christoffer The proof from epistemology that justifies reason as being true.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. — Christoffer

Please prove that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions. Thank you.

Points well made. It had seemed unlikely that 3017 understood what he was getting into - never mind his opponent! - and so far that lack confirmed.

Please prove that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions. Thank you. — Foghorn

Kant, presumably not all alone, demonstrated that the ease with which language can be employed to produce questions of all sorts is not matched with any concomitant capability for those same questions to be sensibly answered, nor a general willingness to acknowledge they are unanswerable. But it is a basic fallacy and foolishness, to argue/hold/believe that because a question is unanswerable, it is therefore answerable, and answered!

The proof from epistemology that justifies reason as being true. — Trinidad

"Justifies reason as being true"? Why are you changing the meaning of what I write? What truth?

You asked:

Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief

Whenever you go into epistemology and ask if belief and experience are superior to logic and reason, how would you create such an argument? If you claim this, then please make an epistemological argument in support of it.

let's go

p1. Unsupported belief leads to more unknown consequences.
p2 Supported belief leads to more known consequences.
p3 Unknown consequences have a higher tendency for suffering.
p4 Known consequences have a higher tendency to suppress suffering.

Conclusion: Unsupported beliefs have a higher tendency to cause suffering. Supported beliefs have a higher tendency to suppress suffering.

We could go on with arguments like this but the point is that if you go through epistemological philosophy, there's little support for belief and experience as being superior sources for any kind of decision. It's like basic philosophy to know this. It flows through epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. It's the most foundational idea in philosophy, the foundation for deduction, induction etc. There's rarely any room for belief and experience in any philosophical arguments because they are essentially biases and fallacies at their core.

Please prove that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions. Thank you. — Foghorn

Human reason is how we know facts about the world and universe, the very reason you are able to write on a machine right now is because of this. The proof is in the pudding, in the very existence of humanity's achievements. None of this is a result of religion or belief, they're a result of logic, reason, inventions through science.

So if that is true, which we have the world around as proof for, then if we ask what has the highest potential to answer or address the largest of questions we have, is that then religion, belief, and faith? By any logic of this, no. People can find comfort in religion and faith, but not address the questions in any knowledgeable way.

As an example, the nature of life, evolution, physics, and how the universe works are major, huge questions that for many thousands of years were only explained by religion. But with general relativity, Darwin and with modern experiments and tests confirming them over and over, we have essentially answered a lot of questions that were once "large".

So, is human reason, logic etc. qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions? If by meaningful you mean to comfort you, no, fantasies and fairy tales can do that if you don't find meaning in truth and facts, but for anyone that finds meaning in truth and facts, yes, it is absolutely superior to any reasoning through religion or faith. It's what much of the world we live in is built upon.

Faith doesn't start my electric car. It doesn't achieve major shifts in the quality of life. The house I live in is a result of many hundred years of innovation based in reasoning and my good quality of life is a result of all of that, not religion. By answering some of the largest questions, we also produce meaningful consequences for our lives.

So, please disprove and then prove that religion does the same. Especially in regard to how institutionalized religion fought back against human innovation and rational thought until the enlightenment era started to give them the middle finger.

Human reason is how we know facts about the world and universe, the very reason you are able to write on a machine right now is because of this. — Christoffer

All true. But not proof reason is qualified to meaningfully comment on the very largest of questions.

So, please disprove and then prove that religion does the same — Christoffer

If you wish to debate a theist, I'm not one. Just so you know.

I'm asking how you prove reason is true?
You haven't shown reason is superior to experience. You have just listed some assertions.
Logic rests on non provable axioms. Its just that you feel they are justified. Same as religion. From feelings. — Trinidad

This is remarkably facile, ignorant, and wrong, and the writer manifestly too intelligent to have himself bought it..

Reason is reliable - we can deal with true when you define it. Reason is superior to experience because it contains and uses experience, experience not containing reason. (We learn from and with experience, not in experience. Do you burn yourself every time you light a match, or cut yourself with every sharp object you touch?) Logic rests on reliable axioms. And "feeling" has nothing whatever to do with it.

Religion starts with feeling, scants logic and neglects experience, all for the sake of feeling. Seeing some differences?

@tim wood
Another who hasn't understood epistemology.

This is basic stuff. — Christoffer

It is on your part. It's basic stuff you assume I don't know, because I'm asking you to look beyond such basic arguments. For example:

Nietzsche's inversion of values refers to how Christianity reverses the natural into the opposite. It stems from his contempt for Christianity. — Christoffer

Nietzsche was wrong. Nihilism is false. Man in a state of nature was not an amoral, self serving brute - and we can know this because our species survived, generation after generation, raising children - for millions of years. Homo sapiens is a moral creature.

There was an inversion of values - but it wasn't the strong fooled by the weak. It was the difference between hunter gatherer tribal morality - and the morality necessary to multi tribal society. Religion is the first politics - and philosophy, law and economics. Faith is required because of the social significance of the concept; not because of its apparent truth or eminent provability. Indeed, religion seems to go out of its way to stretch credulity! Why? Because belief serves a purpose - and arguably, it's an important purpose that's been displaced without being replaced.

If you accept that the concept of God serves this important purpose - and you may well recognise that it has done, but argue now - philosophy, politics, law, economics have become wholly adequate alternate sources of authoritative value in themselves, as you say here:

God and religion is still irrelevant to humanity if we have good non-religious ethics system in place (which we have) and live our lives with self-reflection, skepticism, and a sense of logic and rational reasoning. — Christoffer

It's not that I'd disagree; per se - but would just point out that humankind is barrelling toward extinction - while the Amish, by comparison - could go on raising barns forever. Their way of life is sustainable, while ours isn't. And that unsustainability, I would argue - is the consequence of a mistaken relationship between religion and science, that is in turn the author of your mistaken relationship to God.

Given apparent design in nature, God is a credible hypothesis explaining existence; the first cause argument is about as reasonable as, and not exclusive of the big bang. You would not conclude an hypothesis is false, simply because it had not been proven true. Epistemically, you'd be agnostic with regard to the validity of the hypothesis - whereas, you positively claim to know there's no God.

Another who hasn't understood epistemology. — Trinidad

TPF is many things, and also not many things. One of the things that it is, is a place for the possibility of education. If I thought my reply to you could be substantively dismissed by reference to an -ology, i would have wasted neither my nor your time. But you waste both our time by deploying the word in the place of argument - and possible education.

In as much as my points are substantive, your dismissal of that substance by word implies you do not know what the word means, perhaps believing it has magical powers. So, argue and perhaps educate, and don't waste our time. And you may find, as I have often enough, that just the effort of reasoning in argument itself is instructive and can teach. .

I'm asking how you prove reason is true?
You haven't shown reason is superior to experience. You have just listed some assertions.
Logic rests on non provable axioms. Its just that you feel they are justified. Same as religion. From feelings. — Trinidad

Can we have the moderators check for low-quality posts? I'm not sure how to define it anymore.

Nietzsche was wrong. Nihilism is false. Man in a state of nature was not an amoral, self serving brute - and we can know this because our species survived, generation after generation, raising children - for millions of years. Homo sapiens is a moral creature. — counterpunch

I didn't say he was right, psychology has already proven basic morality can arise without any religion or heavy rationalization about ethics. Why I brought up his fear of nihilism is that theists usually show this fear. It's why they always bring up Lenin and Stalin as (ridiculous) examples of how atheism fails as a foundation. The core is that nihilism out no belief and faith leads to murder. It's the same reason why pseudo-philosophers like Jordan Peterson claim that a true atheist is a murderer because he has no morals.

I used it as an example of the absurdity that theists possess when fearing a world built on atheism.

Faith is required because of the social significance of the concept; not because of its apparent truth or eminent provability. Indeed, religion seems to go out of its way to stretch credulity! Why? Because belief serves a purpose - and arguably, it's an important purpose that's been displaced without being replaced. — counterpunch

It has no or serves any purpose anymore. This is the point. In a large society where there are no clear explanations for anything and moral philosophy isn't a thing, there has to be some kind of agreement between people to follow or for them to explain things that force great sorrows onto them. So it makes sense how religion starts, but that doesn't mean it has any purpose existing when rational reasoning and logic have taken its place. We don't need religion to explain things anymore, so the purpose of religion is gone now. We can use methods from religion, such as meditation, as there are physical effects on our well-being that we get out of it, but the faith and belief are gone. It has no meaning when we have other methods and tools to explain the unexplainable or can be calm in accepting something as unknown until we know more.

The only purpose of belief is the psychological factor, how it can calm certain people. But I can't see how that can't be replaced by meditation and other forms of practice. Most of the time, people who need the relief of faith just have bad mentors who can't articulate support or guidance without the concept of faith intertwined.

It's not that I disagree; per se - but would just point out that humankind is barrelling toward extinction — counterpunch

By what measurement are we doing that? Apart from insane politicians with the hand on the button and capitalist scumbags who rather burn the world for a profit, there's little to support the world getting worse. Quality of life is increasing around the world. To say that humankind is barrelling toward extinction needs some supporting data.

Their way of life is sustainable, while ours isn't. And that unsustainability, I would argue - is the consequence of a mistaken relationship between religion and science, that is in turn the author of your mistaken relationship to God. — counterpunch

Unsupported assumptions. Where's the data that they would survive and we won't? And why would that have anything to do with a relationship between science and religion? Nothing of what you write here has any substance, it's just "end is nigh" speculation without substance.

Given apparent design in nature, God is a credible hypothesis explaining existence; the first cause argument is about as reasonable as, and not exclusive of the big bang. — counterpunch

Oh no, the old first cause argument. It's disproven all the time without theists caring for the lack of logic. First cause doesn't point to any God at all. It points to there being a starting point, something that kickstarted the dominos, but that could be an interdimensional rock of unknown material as well, which is as far from "God" as you can get. And you explain nature as designed and therefor there must be a God and... got damn it, there's no logic here, there's nothing to support any of what you are writing now and you're just proving my point of the illogical fallacy and biased nature of theists. It's not philosophy, it's a mockery of philosophy to just puke words about connections between nature and God and first cause.

I don't have to make an argument anymore you are proving my point yourself.

Epistemically, you'd be agnostic with regard to the validity of the hypothesis - whereas, you positively claim to know there's no God. — counterpunch

There's a teapot between Mercury and Venus and you can't prove me wrong! And if you can't prove me wrong then I am right. Why are we still tolerating this kind of stupidity in philosophy? I don't know. The burden of proof is on you to prove God's existence. I cannot have a burden of proof to disprove something that isn't first proven. I must provide evidence for a teapot between Venus and Mercury before I can claim it to be true, and then you have the burden of proof to prove that wrong. But I can't demand that you need to disprove me if I've provided no proof to you. This is like kindergarten-level philosophy. This is why I can't take theists seriously and why I don't think theism should be considered philosophy, it disregards everything that is a foundation for philosophical praxis, and for some unknown reason, it is tolerated. For me, this is all evangelistic nonsense that has no place in contemporary philosophy. Let the theists play in their bubble called something else than philosophy.

Given the affirmative stance you've taken with respect to the debate proposition, you must demonstrate that "my atheism" is not logical (i.e. not valid). On other hand, in order to defeat the proposition at issue, I must express "my atheism"s" logical form only to show its validity and not to demonstrate that its conclusions are also sound (i.e. true). It's not "my preference", 3017, but what the terms of the debate require. (180 Proof)

180 has given his argument valid logical form. Of course the argument is empty. As they are both aware, valid does not mean sound. But note that 180 inserts "not valid" as a parenthesis. It is still up to 3017 to demonstrate that the major premise is not only false but illogical. It remains to be seen if or how he will do this.

@tim wood
Save your preaching for the sheep.

Strangely, I WAS raised in a religious family and it STILL took me by surprise some time during my growing-up when I realized that adults didn’t think of Jesus and Santa Claus the same way: stories you tell children as if they were true as a kind of game or moral lesson but not something grown-ups literally believe in.

My family gave me all kinds of religious fiction (as in, stories even the believers knew was fiction) that featured angels in modern times and prayer saving people via miracles, or events in ancient times featuring fantastic monsters defeated by righteous soldiers of God, that so far as I could tell was indistinguishable from urban or high fantasy respectively. So that probably (unintentionally on their part) helped me to categorize religious mythology in the same category as any avowedly fictional mythopoesis. — Pfhorrest

Ah now that's interesting. I wonder how common this is.

Yours the covering fire for the retreat of the unable-in-so-many-ways. Too bad you are so unable. At your level it is a choice, which is disgraceful