Really? I encountered Deists in the UU church I attended. And, ever heard of Stoicon? I went last year, I'll probably go again this year. There is a thriving community of Stoics online. I suspect the same is true of Deism. — anonymous66

yes, but they have very little in common. Stoicism doesn't cover all the bases so to speak. It covers the bases of how you should behave, but that's about it. It doesn't tell you whether there's a God or not (there are both Stoic atheists and Stoic believers), it doesn't tell you where man comes from, and where man is going to, etc. It doesn't answer existential questions. It just gives you a practice that you can do here and now. Religions aren't like this.

It doesn't tell you whether there's a God or not (there are both Stoic atheists and Stoic believers),

You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers.

Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...

However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong when it comes to question about God's existence.

Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...

However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong about the question of God's existence. — anonymous66

Precisely the problem I was talking about. Also most of today's Stoics would disagree with the Ancient Stoics on, for example, sexual morality.

You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers. — anonymous66

No. You won't see a Christian atheist in a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church, which are the oldest Christian churches that you can find. Sure, there are some insignificant branches of Christianity where the are atheists, but that's all.

Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...

However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong about the question of God's existence. — anonymous66

Precisely the problem I was talking about. Also most of today's Stoics would disagree with the Ancient Stoics on, for example, sexual morality.

I've been involved with Stoicism for a little over a year. At it's core, Stoicism is the belief that Morality is The most important thing. Stoics believe that they are merely people who are on a path toward moral perfection. They are people who believe that Virtue is Necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human).

One of the most influential people in the Modern Stoicism Movement is Massimo Pigluicci. He has a blog called howtobeastoic.
He also writes a Stoic advice column. Here is his take on Infidelity... (Spoiler alert.. he's against it).

He also writes a Stoic advice column. Here is his take on Infidelity... — anonymous66

Okay, what's his view on fornication then and promiscuous sex?

The Stoics had a lot to say about sex and lust.. for instance..

On the contrary. It was very specific, talking about the limitations of language. — Mariner

I know that it was about that, but that in no way makes it any less vague. For example, in the part that I quoted, you vaguely referred to an expression denoted by the letter X, and you vaguely referred to a truth being "pointed at" behind this expression. How you think that that requires no further clarification is beyond me. What are you talking about in particular? Can you give an example? And if you're talking about God, which, in the context of this discussion, would not be unusual, then why don't you just say so plainly? What do you mean by the phrase "point at" truth? What is that exactly? How does it work?

Don't you think it is curious that you then ask me to give a... linguistic account of "some kind of private mystical experience"? — Mariner

You're taking my replies out of context. My initial reply did no such thing. It basically said that if you can't explain yourself properly or demonstrate this truth, then that's that. And my last reply was not at all curious, but rather to be expected in light of your own comment. You said "And if they can, then that's that". So, naturally, I'm asking you whether they actually can, and whether you are one such person. And obviously, if we were to have any hope of getting to the truth of the matter, then merely saying so wouldn't do. It would have to be put to the test.

This was not the subject of my post. The subject of my post was that language has limits, and that both sides (atheists and theists) should recognize that and take it into account when trying to understand the other side. — Mariner

Yes, I get that that's what your comment was about. And, in reply, I say that what you should reasonably expect someone to believe likewise has limits. In addition, if you say, suggest, or indicate that you can't put something into words or explain it properly, then that is certainly no where near being enough to warrant that this is indicative of some kind of significant truth that's being pointed at. On the contrary, nonsense cannot be true.

No no, I'm not asking about the Ancient Stoics. I know what the Ancient Stoics say, I've read them. I'm asking you what modern stoics believe. Ciceronianus here calls himself a modern Stoic. Ask him, does he think fornication is wrong? Probably not. Ask your friends at the Stoicon.

Are you merely asserting that you know that modern Stoics don't care about what the ancient Stoics texts say? That has not been my experience. My experience has been that modern Stoics encourage each other to read and meditate on the ancient Stoic texts.

It has also been my experience that The most important thing for Stoics is morality. Edit: and yes, that includes sexual morality.

Are you merely asserting that you know that modern Stoics don't care about what the ancient Stoics texts say? — anonymous66

No, I am asking you a question. The question was:

Okay, what's his view on fornication then and promiscuous sex? — Agustino

Here's the thing. Modern Stoics, just like they disregard what Ancient Stoic texts said about God, also disregard some things ancient texts said about fornication. They go hand-in-hand with modern culture on these issues of sexuality and God. Most people out there - even those who commit adultery (not even talking about fornication now) will say that adultery is wrong. So it's no surprise that modern stoics say that too.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there isn't unity amongst Stoics. There are very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues. You won't find such divergences amongst the oldest religious groups.

Yes, the most important things for Stoics is morality, but even there, they disagree about what that morality is. Stoicism doesn't have clear cut beliefs upon key issues. For example, you can be a Stoic without believing in God. You can be a Stoic without believing fornication and casual sex is wrong. And so forth.

What are you talking about in particular? Can you give an example? And if you're talking about God, which, in the context of this discussion, would not be unusual, then why don't you just say so plainly? What do you mean by the phrase "point at" truth? What is that exactly? How does it work? — Sapientia

If I were talking about God, I'd have written "God". I wrote "X" precisely because the problem is not limited to theology.

We can analyze "American Pie" and the problem will be the same.

And obviously, if we were to have any hope of getting to the truth of the matter, then merely saying so wouldn't do. It would have to be put to the test. — Sapientia

Sure. But not here, since here we are using language to communicate, and since I'm not talking about any particular X (which is why the symbol X is being used).

If you want me to talk about God, there is no problem with that. But talking about God will not "put it to the test", ["it"=my experience of God], due to the limitations of language. If you want to put this specific "it" to the test, you'll have to interact with me in other ways than merely linguistically. For example, I'd mention that I did some stuff, and that if you did this stuff, perhaps you'd experience something similar.

(Note that I'm answering here one of your earlier questions, "what do I mean by the phrase 'point at truth'" -- I mean the use of language to point to non-linguistic sources of truth).

In addition, if you say that you can't put something into words or explain it properly, then that is certainly no where near being enough to warrant that this is indicative of some kind of significant truth that's being pointed at. On the contrary, nonsense cannot be true. — Sapientia

I didn't say that "if something cannot be put into words, then it points at truth". I said that sometimes truths cannot be put into words, and must be pointed at. The important thing is that there is no linguistic criterion to distinguish which is which. Whenever you see someone claiming that language has hit a wall and that therefore you must transcend language to get to the truth, you have to verify the claim (by following its non-linguistic aspect) by yourself.

Note that "to transcend language" has a weighty sound but it is nothing mystical or extraordinary; toddlers do it, all the time.

For example, I'd mention that I did some stuff, and that if you did this stuff, perhaps you'd experience something similar. — Mariner

You should be careful Sappy, who knows what "stuff" you'll be asked to do X-)

If I were talking about God, I'd have written "God". I wrote "X" precisely because the problem is not limited to theology.

We can analyze "American Pie" and the problem will be the same. — Mariner

I'm after a specific example that is relevant to the topic which you think illustrates what you were talking about in that part of your original comment that I quoted, and I'd like you to elucidate any vague terms that you've used, like those I've pinpointed.

Sure. But not here, since here we are using language to communicate, and since I'm not talking about any particular X (which is why the symbol X is being used). — Mariner

Then think of something particular and relevant to the topic, and tell me how you'd go about it. Or are you going to tell me you can't even do that?

If you want me to talk about God, there is no problem with that. But talking about God will not "put it to the test", ["it"=my experience of God], due to the limitations of language. If you want to put this specific "it" to the test, you'll have to interact with me in other ways than merely linguistically. For example, I'd mention that I did some stuff, and that if you did this stuff, perhaps you'd experience something similar. — Mariner

Ah, that's more like it. Now we're finally getting somewhere. But that's still incredibly vague, and I hope you won't pretend otherwise. The problem is that nothing you can tell me about or get me to do will necessarily cause me to reach the conclusion that God exists, and, even if I did reach that conclusion after doing whatever it is that you have in mind, there are a whole number of explanations for why I would have reached that conclusion, and you'd then have the extremely arduous task of attempting to champion just one over many, many others, and others which, in my assessment, are much more plausible.

I didn't say that "if something cannot be put into words, then it points at truth". I said that sometimes truths cannot be put into words, and must be pointed at. The important thing is that there is no linguistic criterion to distinguish which is which. Whenever you see someone claiming that language has hit a wall and that therefore you must transcend language to get to the truth, you have to verify the claim (by following its non-linguistic aspect) by yourself.

Note that "to transcend language" has a weighty sound but it is nothing mystical or extraordinary; toddlers do it, all the time. — Mariner

There's a big difference between, on the one hand, the difficulty of a young child, or someone with a learning disability, or a poorly educated adult, struggling to explain or put into words something which is sensible and capable of being explained, and, on the other hand, people who just have vague, muddled, nonsensical thoughts and feelings, and cannot explain them properly or put them into words because of the very nature of those thoughts and feelings. It seems clear to me, although I could be wrong, that you have in mind some sort of special and profound truth which you think is being pointed to, rather than the truth that these people are simply confused and emotional.

There can also be a big difference in the evidence supporting a causal relationship between one thing and another. Even if I was lacking in linguistic ability, I might nevertheless notice the causal relationship between flicking the light switch and the light coming on, but that's a world apart from having a funny feeling, perhaps after doing something like praying or meditating, and leaping to the conclusion that God must therefore exist.

The problem is that nothing you can tell me about or get me to do will necessarily cause me to reach the conclusion that God exists — Sapientia

STOP!

You're going in with a preconceived idea. It's like telling me that nothing I tell you to do, even putting your hand in the right place, will convince you of the existence of fire. What I mean by fire is precisely what you experience when you put your hand in the right place.

So similarly, what Mariner means by God will be what you experience by doing the secret "stuff" he wants you to do. Not daddy in the sky, or whatever other preconceived ideas you have.

I'm after a specific example that is relevant to the topic which you think illustrates what you were talking about in that part of your original comment that I quoted, and I'd like you to elucidate any vague terms that you've used, like those I've pinpointed. — Sapientia

Like "American Pie"?

Or "God"?

Or perhaps you want some other example. Are not two enough?

But let's use another, since it is in my mind right now (I was reading the story to my son last night) and it is apropos.

Are you familiar with "The Little Prince"?

In that book, the Fox teaches this to the Prince:

"Whatever is essential is invisible to the eyes". (Free translation of mine there).

Here, language is being used to point to something invisible. (And I'm sure the Fox would not dispute my interpretation that "the eyes" here is a proxy for "all senses" -- it is not as if hearing or touch would be privileged).

The problem is that nothing you can tell me about or get me to do will necessarily cause me to reach the conclusion that God exists — Sapientia

I know, this is why I won't even try :D.

I'm not talking about God, but about the limitations of language, remember?

There's a big difference between, on the one hand, the difficulty of a young child, or someone with a learning disability, or a poorly educated adult, struggling to explain or put into words something which is sensible and capable of being explained, and, on the other hand, people who just have vague, muddled, nonsensical thoughts and feelings, and cannot explain them properly or put them into words because of the very nature of those thoughts and feelings. It seems clear to me, although I could be wrong, that you have in mind some sort of special and profound truth which is being pointed to, rather than the truth that these people are simply confused and emotional. — Sapientia

False dichotomy. It is not "either disabled or confused".

What I have in mind is not "some sort of special and profound truth", it is the very ordinary and commonplace phenomenon of observing the limitations of language. My 5-year old kid can grasp it. I'm sure you can too. It is, after all, observed in any internet conversation, including this one.

Even if I was lacking in linguistic ability, I might nevertheless notice the causal relationship between flicking the light switch and the light coming on, but that's a world apart from having a funny feeling and leaping to the conclusion that God must exist. — Sapientia

It is not about lacking any linguistic ability -- how could it be? If I'm talking about intrinsic limits of language? Not even Shakespeare could defeat intrinsic limits of language.

So similarly, what Mariner means by God will be what you experience by doing the secret "stuff" he wants you to do. — Agustino

I would begin by recommending clear and methodical reasoning. (This is not about Sapientia by the way, it is about anyone who asked me how to approach God).

I would begin by recommending clear and methodical reasoning. (This is not about Sapientia by the way, it is about anyone who asked me how to approach God). — Mariner

Yes but that's relatively unimportant. More important is the experience itself.

STOP!

You're going in with a preconceived idea. It's like telling me that nothing I tell you to do, even putting your hand in the right place, will convince you of the existence of fire. What I mean by fire is precisely what you experience when you put your hand in the right place.

So similarly, what Mariner means by God will be what you experience by doing the secret "stuff" he wants you to do. Not daddy in the sky, or whatever other preconceived ideas you have. — Agustino

No, you STOP! And READ MORE CAREFULLY! :D

I made an important qualification by using the word "necessarily", which allowed for such possibilities. If what Mariner has in mind is like your example of sticking my hand into fire, then I would almost certainly not be an atheist. But I am much more sceptical, and, I would say, sensible, than to have such an expectation.

No, you STOP! And READ MORE CAREFULLY! :D — Sapientia

Hold on bruv, need to find the fuckin button for that mate!

Yes but that's relatively unimportant. More important is the experience itself. — Agustino

For some people, perhaps better people, that is relatively unimportant. It wasn't for me, though, and I'd bet that most people who visit philosophy forums would agree.

It wasn't for me, though, and I'd bet that most people who visit philosophy forums would agree. — Mariner

Okay but reason can only make do with what you've got. If you don't have the necessary material, either you imagine it, or you experience it. Otherwise how can you even reason?

Okay but reason can only make do with what you've got. — Agustino

The salient point is that everyone's got what it takes to understand what theologians are talking about when they talk about God. The obstacles here are not sensorial (it's not as if theologians had better senses) or intellectual (it's not as if they were smarter). The obstacles reside mainly in the will (guided by cultural and social factors, such as a strong dislike of the historical aspects of religions), and they prevent the atheist (to get back to my first post in the thread) from reasoning clearly and methodically about the claims being offered.

Needless to say, there is a mirror image of the atheist in the theist camp, usually referred to as "fundamentalist" or "fanatic".

Like "American Pie"? — Mariner

How is American Pie relevant to the topic? This is a discussion about atheism, is it not? What's the connection? Perhaps you're the kind of person that looks at a discussion about substance dualism and thinks "The Hangover 3", but I'm not that kind of person.

I know, this is why I won't even try. — Mariner

Necessarily. I said "necessarily". Show me something like sticking my hand into fire, and there'll be one more sheep to add to the flock. If that were so, you could easily convert me and many others like me. But let's be honest, we both know that you don't have any such trick up your sleeve, and so you're probably right not to bother.

I'm not talking about God, but about the limitations of language, remember? — Mariner

Of course I remember. I've been trying to get you to stick to the topic of discussion, which is not a discussion about language in general. So start talking about God.

False dichotomy. It is not "either disabled or confused". — Mariner

False allegation. I didn't say that it's either disabled or confused. I pointed out an important difference between typical cases like the one you mentioned with your example of a toddler and some other cases. I didn't say that these are the only two possible cases. I focused on what I did because I think that you can't rule it out and I think that it should be seriously considered. When it comes to possible explanations, unless there's very good reason to do otherwise, the ordinary should be given priority over the extraordinary. It's ordinary for someone to be confused and emotional, and, as a result, jump to extraordinary conclusions, like, say, that they've been abducted by aliens or that God has been directly communicating with them. It would be extraordinary if these things actually happened.

What I have in mind is not "some sort of special and profound truth", it is the very ordinary and commonplace phenomenon of observing the limitations of language. My 5-year old kid can grasp it. I'm sure you can too. It is, after all, observed in any internet conversation, including this one. — Mariner

Yeah, well, my 5-year-old kid can stay on topic.

It is not about lacking any linguistic ability -- how could it be? If I'm talking about intrinsic limits of language? Not even Shakespeare could defeat intrinsic limits of language. — Mariner

Then why bring up the example of the toddler?! That's obviously to do with lacking linguistic ability, so go think up a better example, and don't blame me for your failures.

And just because you're claiming that this is about intrinsic limits of language, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is in any given case. I'm raising alternative possibilities for consideration. It's entirely possible that there are cases that you'd count as an example of the limits of language which could better be explained due to other kinds of limitation, like limitation in linguistic or intellectual ability, or in psychological terms.

You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers. — anonymous66

This is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. I once identified as such a person but then thought better of it. It unduly waters down the meaning of the word "Christian."

Sapientia, our conversation is strong evidence of a related problem, that of the limits of communication. (It is linked but it is not the same as the limits of language -- language would be limited even if we were not trying to say anything to anyone).

You have to accept the possibility that there is noise in our communication before the dialogue can proceed.

For example, you say that when I invoked toddlers, it "obviously" had to do with lacking linguistic ability. If you knew my 5-year old, who never stops talking (since he was about 3 years old), you'd see that was very far from my mind :D.

I can easily explain what it is that was on my mind when I mentioned the fact that my 5-year old can grasp the intrinsic limits of language. The point I wanted to make is that, to understand those limits, we must assume a vantage point which is (a) non-linguistic and (b) easily accessible (since even toddlers can access it easily). It was an attempt at encouragement.

But what was on my mind is less important than the obvious fact that there is noise in our communication when you say that something is "obvious" when it is simply wrong.

If you want to engage in a dialogue, we can proceed through short posts. This will minimize the noise. But it will be important, for both of us, to keep in mind, all the time, that communication also has intrinsic limits, and to refrain from jumping to conclusions. It will also help if we write carefully.

Let me know if this is acceptable to you. And since it is you who are driving the conversation through your questions, choose one, or a few, that I can answer concisely.

Okay, then please give a clear example of what you meant with regards to toddlers transcendening language. What I meant by lacking linguistic ability with regards to toddlers and young children was not that they lack the ability to talk a lot. Believe it or not, I have been around toddlers and young children before, and I know what they can be like. What I meant -
and I thought that this would have been clear -
was that they are lacking in linguistic ability in terms of vocabulary and finding the right words to explain things well. These abilities in a typical 5-year-old are clearly not going to be as advanced as they would be in a typical adult.

But I really would prefer it if we stuck to the topic. This isn't a discussion about language or children, except insofar as it relates to atheists or atheism or theism or God - that kind of thing. Now, without going back over our discussion to find quotes, my understanding is roughly that you have spoken of a truth that can be pointed to behind language, and that this can be accessed somehow through certain experiences and by doing stuff. In response, I've criticised that on account of being too vague and for other reasons, which I don't think that you've properly addressed, so I think that in your next reply you should go back and start from there. And don't forget, this is about atheism, so of course, I expect this to be about things like how one can know whether or not a certain experience is an experience of God and not something else, rather than about American Pie or The Little Prince.

I'm the type of atheist that likes things to be explained clearly, so that one can determine what exactly we're talking about and whether or not it makes any sense, or has any truth to it, or whether or to what extent it's supported by evidence, and that sort of thing.

...they are lacking in linguistic ability in terms of vocabulary and finding the right words to explain things well... — Sapientia

I thought that the mention of Shakespeare was clear enough, to the point that this is not what I'm talking about.

The intrinsic limits of language are not present only in deficient users. They are limits of language, not of language users.

And this is quite on-topic if you ask me. Remember, my first intervention is the thread was to point out that atheists are defined by disagreement with a given linguistic expression (for example, "God exists"). Another point made in that first post was that there are theistic, orthodox expressions (apophatic theology) which deny, just as atheists do, that "God exists".

Which goes to show that there's more going on here than what can be expressed linguistically. When a traditional Christian (like me) says "Yes, God does not exist, not as other things which we call 'existents' ", we are not suddenly turned into atheists.

my understanding is roughly that you have spoken of a truth that can be pointed to behind language, and that this can be accessed somehow through certain experiences and by doing stuff. — Sapientia

Yep. Though I emphasized that "certain experiences" and "stuff" are far from being esoteric activities; I mentioned that they are accessible to toddlers, and, in reply to Agustino, I mentioned clear and methodical reasoning as part of the "stuff".

I've criticised that on account of being too vague and for other reasons, which I don't think that you've properly addressed, so I think that in your next reply you should go back and start from there. And don't forget, this is about atheism, so of course, I expect this to be about things like how one can know whether or not a certain experience is an experience of God and not something else. — Sapientia

Why is it "vague"?

How can it become crisper? What kind of claim of mine would be crisper?

Let me try another tack.

Whenever an atheist says "I don't thing God exists", he is bringing into the word "God" a lot of experiences, right?

And whenever a theist disagrees and says, "Well, I think God exists", he is bringing into the word "God" another set of experiences.

Is it not obvious that, barring bad faith or plain stupidity, both parties are talking about different referents (though they are using the same word)?

To put some flesh in the scenario. In many occasions in my PF experience, I've seen people dispute that "God exists" based on a materialist notion. It may be Daddy-in-the-sky, which is silly, or it may be the infinitely complex God of Dawkins, which is not silly (though it is wrong). I would dispute that those gods, exist, too. But that does not mean I'm an atheist; because, when I say "God exists", I'm talking about something else.

"What is this something else", you ask?

Well, to begin with the God of the Philosophers that has been brought up in the thread -- it is whatever sustains the natural framework, it is the link between our reason and the external world, it is the root of beauty, it is love, it is the Agathon. Etc. (An infinite etc.).

I think it [where "it" points at everything up there in that paragraph] exists. This is why I'm not an atheist. Can an atheist believe in that with me and still call himself an atheist? Sure. What matters is not what people call themselves, it is whether or not they understand what is being said, and whether or not they are talking about the same thing.

Mariner, would you say all these things you describe, are things you experienced as existing, rather than reasoning that they exist?