If you see the opposite, that people are disenfranchised and losing hope, losing their health insurance and job security
you
are
losing. — frank

Surely that is their own fault, not atheism's.

If you're an atheist and you're doing well in life, you've got atheism to thank for that, right?
And if you're an atheist and you're not doing so well in life, you've got only yourself to blame for that (or your mental illness), correct?

Stop thinking of blame and look at it mechanistically:

Religion is anesthesia. People reach for religion because it helps. It keeps mom and dad standing upright at their child's funeral.

Social conditions that put mom and dad in that situation are feeding religion, not atheism.

My point is, sharpening your argumentation is mental masturbation. Nobody cares. It has nothing to do with whether people become religious or not.

Social conditions where people are fed, educated, kept healthy, employed, able to live without fear of the local gangs, able to influence their local government, etc. These are the conditions that feed atheism.

What bothers me is this atmosphere of self congratulation as if you idiots really think you're better than religious people some how. You're not. You're exactly like them except you have advantages they didn't have.

Get off your fucking high horses.

@frank

But there are educated,healthy,employed people in secure surrounding who are Still religious.

Atheism science and philosophy are just as much opium as religion.

Also witness the new age movement in the west? A bunch of rich comfortable folks repackaging and inventing religion.

This equation of economics equals atheism equals happiness is false.

Is there a number a greater than which cannot be conceived? For any number that one might conceive, it seems a larger can be found. — Banno

Funny enough, Cantor did think there was a number larger than any conceivable (or inconceivable) number, which he did identify with God: the Absolute Infinite. And he did straight up admit that the very notion thereof is inherently inconsistent.

...reverse the entropy to lower levels or to zero if that's possible. That would mean a Cyclical Universe. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily, and if time really were cyclical that would be a problem for life just as much as heat death would be, because there was a time when there was no life in the universe, so cycling back around to that would imply the death of all the life that currently exists.

To really save life, there needs to be an open-ended future with an unlimited source of new energy to continually counteract the ever-increasing entropy. Fortunately, if eternal inflation cosmology is correct, that's exactly what our universe is like, and all that's left is the monumental challenge of actually harnessing the new energy that's being constantly created in tiny, tiny amounts everywhere across the entire universe, and putting it to some productive use.

But there are educated,healthy,employed people in secure surrounding who are Still religious. — Protagoras

True, but their god isn't the simple-minded object of superstition targeted by a positive atheist. I think you'll find that atheists who understand that give a wide berth to thoughtful divinity.

Atheism science and philosophy are just as much opium as religion. — Protagoras

How so?

Also witness the new age movement in the west? A bunch of rich comfortable folks repackaging and inventing religion. — Protagoras

Mysticism, actually. Not the same thing as religion.

This equation of economics equals atheism equals happiness is false. — Protagoras

Statistics bears it out. Educated, wealthy people are more likely to be atheists.

The main arguments for the existence of god are quite accessible, and it doesn’t take long for one to think them through and become unconvinced even if they don’t hear every new iteration of these arguments. — Saphsin

I would not necessarily say that they are new iterations of these arguments; at least some of the proponents have provided evidence that the standard arguments we are familiar with are not faithfully represented in their original form. In the same way that several prominent scholars seem to have misinterpreted Kant (according to Allison), it seems to be the case (according to these neo-scholastic proponents) that modern philosophy has greatly misunderstood the arguments presented by the ancients and the medievals.

The general narrative about how this occurred seems to be that the misinterpretations were published by prominent philosophers associated with the Scientific Revolution, and due to the success of science, these philosophers (and their interpretations) ended up becoming more greatly studied than their predecessors. Neo-scholastics will often claim that philosophy was at its apex with medieval scholasticism, before it went off the rails with the modern turn, and that ultimately we need to re-learn what the scholastics taught and abandon modern and post-modern philosophy for being founded upon fundamental misunderstandings of the "perennial" philosophy, which has continued to be practiced off-the-radar.

In his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Catholic philosopher Edward Feser provides several long-winded metaphysical demonstrations of the existence of God:

• the "Aristotelian proof" is 50 points long,
• the "Neo-Platonic proof" is 38 points long,
• the "Augustinian proof" is 29 points long.
• the "Thomistic proof" is 36 points long.
• the "Rationalist proof" is 27 points long.

Most individuals will be so bamboozled and flabbergasted by the audacious lengths and complexities of these proofs that they will likely vomit and faint. The absurdity of requiring not one, by five different proofs of these lengths in order to demonstrate the existence of God is prima facie evidence that God does not exist.

These proofs serve exactly two purposes:

• To reassure those who believe in God that their beliefs are not irrational, in order to keep them obedient to the ecclesiastical order, and
• To frighten and intimidate those who do not believe in God, in order to keep them from becoming a nuisance to the ecclesiastical order.

Both of which are crucial characteristics of propaganda.

True, but their god isn't the simple-minded object of superstition targeted by a positive atheist — frank

I'm not an atheist, but I also don't believe in the kind of 'sky-father' figure that many believers believe in and most atheists reject. It's a 'straw god' argument a lot of the time. One giveaway is that I will often mention Buddhism in arguments about religion, and most atheists will also reject that, even though Buddhism is not based on belief in God. It turns out it's not belief in God that is the issue, but 'the concept of the transcendent', which is invariably categorised as 'woo'.

So a lot of the time, it's not at all obvious what is being argued about. As I believe Noam Chomsky once said, 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you tell me what I'm supposed not to believe in.'

Two relevant OPs

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/he-who

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671

I think that's useful. I was wondering when someone might raise this.

My version of atheism generally concerned itself with a theistic position that would seek to change politics and the laws (in its favor) or work towards imposing a theocracy. Paul Tillich's notion of theism (for instance), as far as I can tell, doesn't concern me.

That's a neat reply to '. I'd add that the more sophisticated the arguments become, the less convincing they are.

Fear of expertise. So you in effect advocate the evaluation of an argument by those who do not take time to understand it. Et tu, .

Yes, one ought keep an eye out for hubris.

Indeed, that's one such argument. There are many, my aim was to articulate something they have in common: they introduce more problems than they salve*.

People who believe in God typically don't do so on the grunds of some philosophical arguments. — baker

Of course. But look at Philosophy of Religion. Without discussion of the arguments, it would be barren.

(Arguably, it is barren with that discussion.)

Same answer to ; yes, you are right, but so what?

But we might add, if it is so pointless, why are you both here? There are plenty of folk who agree with you, and hence do not post here.

Is it inconsistency, or incontinence?

Indeed. Medieval Christianity borrowed the arguments from Islam. They had to, since they had destroyed the Classical culture that was their own stoa.

In Islamic scholarship, the product of the arguments was Allah, not Christ.

Notice the sudden burst of interest in the arguments since this thread was posted?

There's a embryonic third section to the OP, dealing with morality, that might go some way to addressing this. It's interesting that diverse philosophical positions can tend to the same practical outcome. Of course my answer is silentism, but that does not dismiss the Noumenal, it just doesn't make up stories about it.

Cantor did think there was a number larger than any conceivable (or inconceivable) number — Pfhorrest

That's were my argument came from. And it hopefully avoids the ensuing madness that afflicted him.

they introduce more problems than they solve. — Banno

or 'salve'.

What bothers me is this atmosphere of self congratulation as if you idiots really think you're better than religious people some how. You're not. You're exactly like them except you have advantages they didn't have. — frank

It's philosophy; if wasn't for the dopamine that results from light intellectual narcissism none the universes mysteries would be solved. In theory...

Ah, fixed.

Not necessarily, and if time really were cyclical that would be a problem for life just as much as heat death would be, because there was a time when there was no life in the universe, so cycling back around to that would imply the death of all the life that currently exists. — Pfhorrest

In "linear" universe, the heat death would mean the end of life for all eternity. Not so in a "cyclical" universe which basically presses the reset button and gives life a fresh start. Think of this difference as being similar to that between sleep (continuity) and death (no continuity) - interestingly, if God (super AI) can/has somehow leave/left clues as to how much progress was made in controlling/reversing entropy or even how to halt it (your thoughts precisely) so that life can continue without having to go back to square one each time the universe undergoes heat death, a "cyclical" universe would be exactly like sleep.

It's philosophy; if wasn't for the dopamine that results from light intellectual narcissism none the universes mysteries would be solved. In theory... — Cheshire

Well, let the dopamine flow then. :grin:

yes, you are right, but so what? — Banno

Nobody's taken Anselm seriously since Aquinas gave him the thumbs down.

Do Descartes's ontological proof. It shows that the medieval worldview has god existing by definition. It was a hinge.

In "linear" universe, the heat death would mean the end of life for all eternity. — TheMadFool

A heat death only necessarily applies to an energetically closed universe (where no energy is created or destroyed); only in a closed system must entropy always increase. But according to our latest theories of physics the universe is energetically open, with new energy being constantly created everywhere (though not in an easily accessed form), so in principle it's possible to keep entropy in some part of the universe (the part with life in it) at low entropy forever, no cycling required.

the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist — Banno

If you're not critical of the agnostic who believes this way, why would you be critical of the theist who believes this way?

This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely that those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads. — Banno

Most theists ignore this forum altogether.

I'd say the general sentiment of the atheist is probably apathy toward religion, not really spending much time thinking about it or caring to form a complex position on it. That's not just atheism, but pretty much the case with all sorts of complex intellectual positions.

In any event, I'm a theist. I spend zero amount of time worrying about proofs for God's existence. Faith just doesn't work that way. I live under no illusion that I could change your mind and really don't care to. I actually find your need to peddle atheism as annoying as I do those peddling theism, as in thank you for your pamphlet, but I'm good right now. I'd think that unless someone just happened to be at a terribly vulnerable point in their life would they be open to reconsidering their fundamental worldview.

But to your general observation, I agree. The theists ignore certain threads and the atheists ignore others. Everyone preaches only before their own choir. That's how it should be. But of course everything is exactly as it should be.

Moral Considerations

Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.

Ought we do as he says?

Surely what god says is the case, is the case - it follows from his being who he is; and so it is argued that we ought do as he says. We do what is right by being obedient to his will, by submission.

Here's a philosophical question to consider: ought we do it because it is the will of god, or ought we do it because it is the right thing to do? We can put this in a slightly different way, by asking, is it is right to do as god wills?

Now this of course is Moore's open question, as applied to god. And to be sure it is open to the theist to simply say, yes, it is right to do gods will; and further that gods will and what is right are exactly the same thing. The theist may claim that the notion of what god wills, and the notion of what is the right thing to do, are the very same notion. But this looks to me like a conceptual error, since it is not on the face of it clear that what god wills and what is the right thing to do are the same notion; when we talk about what god wills, we are not, it seems to me, also talking about what it is right to do. That is, it seems to me that the question "Is it right to do as god wills" is not an analytic question; it is not like asking 'Is 2+2 the same as 4?" or "Are all bachelors unmarried men?". Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son as an act of submission or out of fear for god. Sacrificing another human being out of fear or obedience is not a virtuous act. Hence for the purposes of our story, it is possible to question the virtue of the will of god; and it follows that the will of god is not the very same as what is the right thing to do.

Now this is not a knock-down argument, since it remains open for the theist to insist that it was right for Abraham to sacrifice his son. But I don't agree. Further, I think those who think it was morally right for god to make such a demand are in error.

Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. The religious person still has to choose, and are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer. You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god. So no, the choice is yours, regardless of there being or not being a god.

Bring to mind that all of this discussion presupposes that we have some direct access to the will of god. Of course, we have no such access, but are instead left to decide if this or that is the will of god, to choose between Jesus, Allah and Brahmin, and then to further choose between the minuscule variations therein.

All of which might count for nothing if it were clear that the actions of believers were more virtuous than those of unbelievers. But that is not what we see. To be sure, we do see people doing great and noble things in the name of their god, but we see others doing the same for love of their fellows. And we see dreadful crimes committed apparently under the auspices of the Good Lord. Ignoring the right of children, of women, of the dying while using institutional mechanisms to avoid responsibility. Believers do not have any special claim to virtue. They are all too much like everyone else.

I set. up another thread an agnosticism.

Most theists ignore this forum altogether. — Hanover

You have evidence for this?

I said:

In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. — Banno

Run your eye down the list at https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/7/philosophy-of-religion and show me I'm wrong.

your need to peddle atheism... — Hanover

A bit presumptuous. I've repeatedly espoused silentism, not atheism. I'm not convinced that the arguments I've presented here are of much value, except perhaps in a role critical of the theist crap that predominates.

That's within the ballpark of what I meant. When it comes to the cosmological or ontological argument, yeah we have Craig & Platinga rather than the original Anselm/Aquinas, but it doesn't really take long to absorb the gist of the reasoning and form an opinion. (I’m not limiting to these examples, just to respond to you)