:up:

BTW, I forgot to suggest you reading his philosophical essay "Ascetic" (if you haven't already).
You can read it here: http://www.angel.net/~nic/askitiki.html

(I just found this ref. I will re-read it myself ... after about 50 years, to see what "it feels" now.)

, I forgot to suggest you reading his philosophical essay "Ascetic" (if you haven't already).
You can read it here: — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for sharing the paper :up:

You're welcome, Javi. I hope you enjoy it!
I remember I loved it. At the time I was deeply involved in the study of Eastern Philosophy and I was surprised to find out that Kazantzakis' concepts were "touching" Gautama's thoughts and teaching. In fact I found out later that indeed the he was kind of preoccupied by the figure of Gautama. Well, all philosophers and philosophical thinkers should --at some point in their life at least. (But they don't!)

He has also written a theatrical play called "Buddha". And this work has been even more neglected than "Ascetic". Quite expected of course. Unfortunately.

Thanks for the link. :up:

Atheism supports religion in responding to the absurd. When one knows these people did not come by their belief through reason, it is absurd to demand reason from them; it is what is called an exercise in futility and makes us all fools. A road to nowhere.

I think that makes you an ignostic. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use one of my currently favourite words.

Perhaps the definition of atheist should be, those who refuse to believe without evidence.

I think that is the definition of an atheist, pretty much.
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
BECAUSE, there is no evidence.
An atheist will debate a theist, but an ignostic wont, as they think that the god notion is so unintelligible that if you believe in god, then you are not worth debating.

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
BECAUSE, there is no evidence. — universeness

My atheism has slightly different foundations - I don't argue there is no evidence. There's plenty of evidence (personal experience, the existence of the universe, consciousness, scripture, etc) it's just that this evidence is incomplete and or unconvincing (to most atheists) and can be readily argued against.

those who refuse to believe without evidence. — boagie

I don't like 'refuse to believe' this sounds like an act of choice and something a Christian or Muslim would say about atheism as a willful denial of truth.

An atheist is unconvinced there is a god. They don't find any of the arguments made on behalf of theism to be convincing. A hard atheist might make a positive claim and say there is no god. While I think this claim is accurate, I personally don't make claims about knowledge I don't believe I have.

I suspect that underpinning a lot of atheism is a lack of sensus divinitatis (to use Calvin's words) and, perhaps, an aesthetic view wherein a god figure adds no meaning to the picture they hold of the world. This might be because the notion of a god seems incoherent.

Yes, in all the history of the gods there never has been a shred of evidence for the existence of these supernatural beings. It is difficult to respect the intellect of someone that can accept the fantastic with no foundation whatsoever. To my way of thinking, if one realizes that the essence of all life is one and the same differing only in structure and form. Also realizing that life lives upon life: life's harshest reality and then purports; to believe in an anthropomorphic god made in his image -- just don't waste my time.

An atheist is unconvinced there is a god. They don't find any of the arguments made on behalf of theism to be convincing. A hard atheist might make a positive claim and say there is no god. While I think this claim is accurate, I personally don't make claims about knowledge I don't believe I have. — Tom Storm

It never occurred to me to look for evidence. I rejected the god depicted in the bible on moral grounds, and since Christianity was so dominant in my culture, no other gods even came under consideration: I'd never heard of them. I just stopped believing the Christian story, and once I had a little bit of distance, it became obvious that the holy book is just a collection of stories.

I know a lot of European and American youth of my generation also turned away from Christianity, but many of them replaced it with Eastern mysticism or paganism or some fringe cult - none of which they understood to any depth or professed with any conviction: I think they just needed an alternate veneer of spirituality. I never felt a loss.

Atheism supports religion like a toilet brush supports the toilet. After a good crap that is and only after a crap.

Otherwise the toilet brush does not support the toilet.

Does that make sense ?

Opposites attract …flies

That essentially means this:

There is a sky (theistic claim)

Point at it says the atheist

I can’t says the theist.

Ha! Says the atheist that’s because the sky doesn’t exist.

Thanks for your support says the theist, I need to get some fresh air coz this toilet stinks

I just stopped believing the Christian story, and once I had a little bit of distance, it became obvious that the holy book is just a collection of stories. — Vera Mont

I understand. Many Christians reject the Bible stories as engaging fictions but still mange to believe in god. The great American model for this was the best selling Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. Literal interpretations of the Bible are fairly recent. The book is often understood as allegorical. Certainly that's what I was taught in the Baptist tradition here in Australia.

Whether the Bible has anything to offer us has very little impact on whether there is a god I would have thought, but I get it.

The book is often understood as allegorical. Certainly that's what I was taught in the Baptist tradition here in Australia. — Tom Storm

Yes, I heard that one, often, as an adult. It would have made no impression in a 12-year-old trying to come to grips with the injustices attributed to a God of Love. And when I did hear that symbolical/allegorical/metaphorical spin, it was still entirely unconvincing. Clumsy BS, actually. (Because the stories just don't work as metaphors! And because so much in them is historically accurate.)
It's far simpler to accept that the people who wrote the stories were depicting their world, its mores and practices, its legends and its beliefs.

The problem with an allegorical interpretation is that it can mean anything given a clever enough interpretation. The following Sam Harris' cookbook example.

Harris wrote this in the end-notes of his book “The End of Faith” and intends it to be a counter-example to Joseph Campbell’s work on mythology.

He walks into a bookstore (Barnes & Noble), and with his eyes closed, randomly grabbed a book and opened it at random. The book was called “A taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific.”

Here’s what Harris wrote in the end-note.

“And therein I discovered it as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for seared fish and shrimp cakes with tomato relish, we need only study list of ingredients to know we are in the presence of unrivaled spiritual intelligence. Then I list the ingredients: One snapper fillet cubed, three teaspoons of chopped scallions, salt and freshly ground pepper… there’s a long list of ingredients. Then I go through with a mystical interpretation of this recipe. The snapper fillet is the individual himself. You and I, awash in the sea of existence, and here we find it cubed which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and in spirit. They have three teaspoons of chopped scallions, this further partakes of the cubic symmetry suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, spirit need to be tended with the same care. Salt and freshly ground black pepper; here we have the perennial invocation of opposites. The white and black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfil the recipe of spiritual life. Nothing after all can be excluded from the human experience. This seems to be a tantric text. What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains which is to say that the good and bad qualities are born at the tiniest actions and thus we’re not in good or evil in general but only by virtue of innumerable moments which color the stream of our being by force of repetition. Then this dash of cayenne pepper: clearly a being of such robust color and flavour signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. I go on and on and this is all bullshit because it’s meant to be bullshit.”

https://unearnedwisdom.com/the-problem-with-sam-harris-cookbook-example/

My near-"ignostic" position is that theistic gods are fictions (atheism re: tokens) because the sine non qua claims of theism are not true (antitheism re: type). Thus, as far as I'm concerned, religious scriptures are canonized allegories just as religious practices are applied superstitions, and are only worth discussing or opposing when they are used (by theocratic fundies or ignorant/hypocritical literalists) to "justify" coercing obedience to the prerogatives of religious leaders and their functionaries.

How about something like:

“Religions are myths and I ignore them unless someone tries to use them to justify telling me what to do”

Easier to write AND to read. Better, no?
Why do you expound like your sentences are a game of word Tetris?
When did you and Getting to the Point have such a terrible falling out? Is there any chance at reconciliation?

The problem with an allegorical interpretation is that it can mean anything given a clever enough interpretation. — Art48

The problem with scripture is interpretation full stop - allegorical or literalist. Just look at the confusions amongst Christians about matters of doctrine and subjects like abortion, capital punishment, gay rights, witchcraft, women's rights, euthanasia, etc. The faithful can't agree on anything and they all think they have god's word sorted.

:ok:

Those who argue with believers, give their subject matter a false value in that such a barren topic is taken seriously and even beaten to death on a philosophy site. When all concerned know ahead of time it is a futile exercise and an utter waste of time.

When all concerned know ahead of time it is a futile exercise and an utter waste of time. — boagie

I've met many atheists who used to be fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. People do respond to arguments and do find their way out of religion. It takes time and exposure to free-thought, but it happens. Atheist organisations are packed with former literalist religious folk who gradually deconverted from Christianity or Islam after exposure to new ideas. So much so that the international organisation Recovering from Religion is dedicated to supporting people to reassess their worldview and recover from facile faiths.

Don't read my words if you don't care for my writing.

Why so defeatist?

My atheism has slightly different foundations - I don't argue there is no evidence. There's plenty of evidence (personal experience, the existence of the universe, consciousness, scripture, etc) it's just that this evidence is incomplete and or unconvincing (to most atheists) and can be readily argued against. — Tom Storm

I think that's a fair point Tom. Accuracy and clarity are very important indeed, when trying to increase confidence levels in what is true. I should have typed 'BECAUSE there is no convincing/significant evidence.'

I assign zero value to witness testimony/personal experience when it comes to the supernatural. Witness testimony does have it's uses, within our legal systems, but not if it has any supernatural element. For example:
"I saw an ethereal pink mist kill the victim, your honour, and a voice from the mist told me, the victim must die, as god demands it. Then a bullet formed in the mist and went through the victims head.
My 10 best friends, who were with me at the time, all saw it to! Honest!"
Inadmissible evidence in all courts, I hope, except perhaps a religious court, in somewhere like 17th century Salem (probably an arrow rather than a bullet, in that case.)
Personal experience is also so compromised by misinterpretation/mental states/consuming scooby snacks, etc that for me, means that such evidence also has zero value.
I perceive of no current existent in the universe, or any currently understood aspect of human consciousness, which provides any significant evidence of the existence of god.
Scripture is just produced from the tradition of human storytelling and the 'Chinese whisper' effect and is evidence of zero value as well, in my opinion.

I know I have not typed anything in this repose to your post Tom, that you are not already fully aware of.
I also know most other folks are fully aware of such as well. BUT, theists still believe, and it's not like there are only a few of them and they don't affect our human society much.
There are many times when I do feel totally ignostic and I just cant be bothered, dispelling the utter BS being proselytized by a particular theist or religious group, BUT, I always feel a 'counter pressure,' that if my ignosticism means I do nothing, then the more destructive affects of theism/religion grow and spread.

I regularly watch atheists debate theists online (mainly via YouTube) and I have noticed that the theist side seems to be getting more and more 'frustrated,' and are becoming more and more abusive and offensive in their desperation. Their most embarrassing representatives, such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham etc just repeat utter BS such as 'have you even saw an ape give birth to a human?' and 'do you really believe the whole universe came from something smaller that a typed dot?'
He then plays recorded laughter, in the background.
I can understand why it gets so exasperating for any interlocuter having to deal with such idiocy, and they must feel quite ignostic at times, but the struggle against evil people like Hovind must continue.

From Wiki:
Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) in 1989 and Dinosaur Adventure Land in 2001 in Pensacola, Florida. He frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. His son Eric Hovind took over operation of CSE after Hovind began serving a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions. In September 2021, Hovind was convicted of domestic violence against his estranged wife.

He was released from prison in 2015 and has continued his evanhellism ever since.
The damage done by characters like Hovind is very significant. Some young people are being brought up and educated via home schooling and Kent Hovind video's, due to their parents being fundamental christians. :scream:

The faithful can't agree on anything and they all think they have god's word sorted. — Tom Storm

Yes. Agree :100:

The faithful can't agree on anything and they all think they have god's word sorted. — Tom Storm

Pray it continues so! Imagine the harm they could do if they were united.
So, rather than try to talk down individual religionists, we're better served by driving in the wedges.

:lol:

Tom, ok nice to know it ultimately has a positive effect on some people, in individual debate it just seems like banging one's head against a wall. Thanks for the insight! Wouldn't the message be better served if people refused to debate about sacred nothingness? Why is it an acceptable topic on a philosophy forum, when both sides know there is nothing there to substantiate or negate.