Comments

  • Is the real world fair and just?
    :ok: So you do not have any concrete grounds to assume or claim that energy (i.e. activity) is not material. Just checking ...
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Why do you assume that energy (e.g. massless particles ... mental activity ...) is not material?
  • The Greatest Music
    It is the current state of political affairs that most concerns me. Does being a 'Socratic philosopher' help?Amity
    Maybe, but imo not as much as being either an Epicurean philosopher or a Stoic philosopher ... or even being an absurdist (Zapffe/Camus-like) philosopher ... might help.
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true.Hallucinogen
    :roll: These are not the droids you are looking for.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪180 Proof That seems to be a very good account of moralityTom Storm
    Thanks.

    I recall Slavoj Žižek making the entirely reasonable riposte that, 'If there is a God, then anything is permitted'.
    Like e.g. absolute ends justify/excuses all relative means (Biblical / Quranic theodicy); "teleological suspension of the ethical" (Kierkegaard); etc ... but (iirc) it was Camus (or Voltaire) who said something like even godlessness does not imply that nothing is prohibited as a riposte to traditions of theologically rationalizing atrocities committed "in the name of God".

    Do you think that the development of morality is a significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory?
    Yes, I think morality as such, like language, gives our species some adaptive advantages.

    a world where there are no absolutesFire Ologist
    Nature might not be "absolute" but for all natural beings, including we humans, Nature is sovereign and inescapable.
  • The Greatest Music
    :smirk: Yes, (dogmatic) rationalizing is always easier than (reflective-dialectical-defeasible) reasoning ... especially for foolosophers.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality?Fire Ologist
    No, of course not. One does not entail the other. Besides, it's more adaptive (or pragmatic) than not, to have a morality (from the Latin word mores meaning 'customs') like developing and using a common language or practicing good diet & hygiene.

    Would you call your morality utilitarian?
    It's a form of negative consequentialism¹ (i.e. my term for it is aretaic disutilitarianism meaning 'virtue-based harm-prevention/reduction').

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_consequentialism [1]

    Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” [ ... ]
    The ancient Hebrews like all other tribal peoples survived, in part, because they had adopted customary prohibitions "not to murder, steal and lie" long before any elder heard a voice telling him/them to do so. 'Core morality' long precedes religion and, in fact (re: anthropology), makes cults & reiigions, as well as trade & politics, possible, and therefore is based on human eusociality (& empathy) constitutive of being a natural species.

    It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong, no matter how you derive that idea.
    'Killing is wrong' (all things being equal) because everyone fears being killed. This core moral idea is, afaik, an objective requirement of every eusocial grouping especially but not limited to humans.

    Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective ...?
    Not exclusively. We are harmed by and suffer from whatever makes our kind (species) of natural being dysfunctional. This harm and suffering, while experienced subjectively, is also objective, which is why the old maxim "A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient" is more often than not a true statement.
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Don't limit yourself.Harry Hindu
    Using a more precise and specific term – "anti-supernatural" in this case – is no more limiting (imo) than using a better, perhaps the best, tool for the job.

    Is it not relevant in a thread discussing religion and metaphysics to assert that religion is a type of delusion?
    I didn't say or imply "delusional" is not "relevant" in this context but that it's too broad and psychologistic rather than a precise and metaphysical term like supernaturalistic.

    And does this assertion provide a non-dual "bridging" between theism and atheism ...?
    No. Atheism, as I've pointed out up-thread (p. 2), implies nonduality by rejecting theism which consists of (e.g. creator-creation, spirit-flesh, supernatural-nature) duality.

    Would the answer to the thread's question ...?
    I suppose that depends on how one answers ... which thread question? :chin:
    .
  • The Greatest Music
    Do you know what is the Good?Janus
    No, but I understand that "The Good" is nonbeing.

    If someone claims to know what is the Good, do you know, can you know, that she knows what is the Good?
    I know that if she's a mortal, then she cannot "know" ...
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Show me where this thread is about the defining attributes of "theism".Pantagruel
    Non sequitur. It was you, Panta, who asserted without argument that my sine qua non claims of theism, which are easily falsified (i.e. atheism), is "ad hoc" or that I "made it up" and so I'm requesting of you to put up – respond with a citation that counters my concept of theism (yeah, we both know you cannot :sweat:) – or shut up.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/915456

    Some people who don’t believe in God, also say things like “there is no truth” or “there are no absolutes.”Fire Ologist
    I definitely do not agree with your "some people" as my previous posts point out. Maybe below (A, B, C1, C2) my reasoning will be clearer to you.

    So something is there for you to work out a morality.
    Yes, see (B) below.

    (A) I believe there are objective truths.

    (B) I believe moral naturalism consists of objective truths
    • humans are natural beings which are imbedded in and inseparable from nature and its regular processes (re: objective facticity);
    • natural beings suffer from what they do to and what they fail to do for themselves or others;
    • humans know what makes humans (and other natural beings like humans) suffer and therefore how to prevent or reduce human (natural beings') suffering (re: disvalue);
    • virtues are habits reinforced by preventing and reducing suffering (re: disvalue) whereas vices are habits reinforced by neglecting or increasing suffering (re: disvalue);
    • human flourishing means maximizing virtues and minimizing vices)
    which can be demonstrated using sound arguments. No doubt, open to discussion and debate. "Why bother?" you ask. To expose the flaws in the argument and explore via thought-experiments / scenarios moral naturalism's (as conceived here) pragmatic plausibility because we are thinking adults instead of dogmatic or supertitious children.

    (C1) I do not believe (theistic) gods are anything more than subjective (ideas fictions or dreams) without any objective referents (i.e. enpty names).

    (C2) I believe that any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective (i.e. arbitrary, relativist, emotive, dogmatic, superstitious, etc), therefore not objective.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ... moral laws ...

    Does the above make sense to you now?
    Fire Ologist
    No. Again, morals =/= laws. :roll:

    if I didn’t believe in God and objective truth
    I don't believe in "God" ... and, because there are objective truths, I'm a moral naturalist.

    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Except for 2008 & 2020, I've only voted for progressive alternatives to our governing corporate duopoly ...
    You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit).Benkei
    I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse. It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.Benkei
    :100: :up:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    @Pantagruel
    Based on Abrahamic, Hindi, pantheonic Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian-Persian-Mesoamerican-Aboriginal traditions, I understand theism as consisting of [at least] the following claims:

    (1) at least one ultimate mystery
    (2) created existence,
    (3) intervenes in – causes changes (which cannot be accounted for otherwise) to – the universe
    (4) and is morally worthy of worship.

    Cite any deity-tradition, sir, that you consider 'theistic' and that does not conceptualize its (highest) deity with these attributes, or claims. :chin:
    180 Proof
  • Is atheism illogical?
    [W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow?Fire Ologist
    Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Please answer my question.L'éléphant
    Given the context (our two posts at the top of this page), ask a question that makes sense.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Non sequitur & category error.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    By destroying people's freedom and ability to think, theism can cause untold damage. The step from believer to satanically evil is very small. All one needs to do is project one's own nihilism and religious absolutism onto others. It even works because fanaticism craves converts.Tom Storm
    :halo: :up:
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Nature is not created equal or fair, and as a result, some human population had fared better than others.L'éléphant
    From a human perspective, non-human nature can seem "unfair and unjust" ... to some less fortuitous "human populations".
  • Is atheism illogical?
    All the religious person can do is interpret scripture or respond from personal perspectives regarding how they 'imagine' god wants them to behave.Tom Storm
    :up: :up:

    If we grant that there is objectivity ...Fire Ologist
    ... then (a) "God" is not an objective fact that is either directly or indirectly observed.

    God serving as judge of moral objectivity
    As per Plato's Euthyphro, 'morality is objective' because (a) "God" says so and not that (a) "God" says so because –independent of all subjects including (any) "God" – it is objective? :eyes:

    I believe those of us who think every “object” we take up is ONLY constructed by ourselves, are just wrong, because there is an objective reality with mind-independent distinctions in it.
    Your confusion, in part, comes from equivocating, or conflating, "object" (ontology) and "objective" (epistemology), Fire Ologist, which is typical of p0m0s / idealists / platonists. :sparkle:

    This is because I believe ..
    I.e. assert without argument or non-arbitrary grounds. :roll:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Ad hominem, not an argument. Quite telling.180 Proof
    ↪180 Proof It isn't against you. It is a generalized fact about the epistemological makeup of individual entities, of which you happen to be one.Pantagruel
    :sweat:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Or you have failed to observe the evidence in the events comprising your own life due to your own attitude, or simply some inherent limitation of your cognitive makeup.Pantagruel
    :roll: Ad hominem, not an argument. Quite telling.
  • Do I really have free will?
    Addendum to

    Do I have free will?kindred
    To the degree you (we) are not coerced by other agents or constrained by either internal and/or external conditions, you (we) "have" free actions.

    Could you have done otherwise? Yes in principle, but only if the sum of all the enabling constraints on your past actions (outside of your awareness or control) had been otherwise than it was.

    Can you choose to do A rather than B? Yes hypothetically, but only if the sum of all the enabling constraints on your present actions (outside of your awareness or control) do not, in effect, deselect some or all of the options presently available to you.

    Existentially, that's how embodied volition (re: compatibilism) seems to cash out.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    To deny the possibility of something that someone else has experienced because you have failed to experiencePantagruel
    We do not "deny" anyone's "experience" only observe that such "experience" does not correspond to anything outside of your head. The experiential difference between us, sir, is not that we 'have failed" but that you seem to emotionally need to take fantasies (of "possibility") literally and we do not.

    The substance of any belief is the effect] that belief has upon the actions of the believer.
    Yes indeed, consider (e.g.) cults, asylums, prisons, casinos, p0m0 seminars, MAGA/Klan rallies ... ye shall know "beliefs" by their fruits. :mask:

    :smirk: :up:

    ... punching bags to us post modern sages.Fire Ologist
    :rofl:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity. But you can’t demonstrate a single belief any god holds regarding morality. Pretty sure you can’t point to a single objective truth about that god. And you certainly can’t demonstrate a god.Tom Storm
    :100: Amen!
  • Do I really have free will?
    How could it be an illusion though, seems to me I have an array of choices.kindred
    "An illusion" is that which is not what it seems to be. "An array of choices" is, in fact, only some predictions based on inertia, biases, assumptions, incomplete / incorrect information and do not determine (cause) actions or outcomes (effects).
  • The Greatest Music
    Yes, as in freethought: thinking (inquiry) free of "tradition" in such a way that we are free for recreating (reasonably extending, or modernizing) tradition.

    ... traditional tropes, such as the Biblical vision of God creating the world for the use of humanity have contributed to this looming crisis.

    Our economic system is unsustainable, being predicated on endless growth, with collapse being the only alternative. Nothing to do with tradition, unless you count the tradition amongst economists of discounting ecological costs as a part of the economy. That greater disrupter of tradition, science, has been telling us how wrongheaded this economic thinking in terms of "externalities" is for more than half a century.
    Janus
    :100: :fire:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    No matter who winds up the Democrat's presidential nominee, all that matters now it seems to me is this:
    the degree to which the coalitions which make up the Dems coalesce again like they did in 2020 to make the election about opposition to The Neofascist Criminal Clown in Roevember.180 Proof
  • Is atheism illogical?
    That isn't nonsensical though, is it 180?AmadeusD
    Of course it is, just like your question.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Yes, but I didn't say or imply anything about "proof". I remarked on a previous nonsensical statement that 'without god, there are no objective truths'.
  • The Greatest Music
    What do you want and expect from philosophy?Fooloso4
    I hope philosophy helps me to live less foolishly ...

    [The] purpose of philosophy, especially for those who recognize that they (we) are congenitally unwise, may be (YMMV) to strive to mitigate, to minimize, the frequency & scope of (our) unwise judgments, conduct, etc via patiently habitualizing various reflective exercises (e.g. dialectics, etc.) And in so far as 'wisdom' denotes mastery over folly & stupidity (i.e. misuses & abuses, respectively, of intelligence, knowledge, judgment, etc), I translate φίλος σοφία as striving against folly & stupidity.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    No theist can identify objective truth either.Tom Storm
    :up: Exactly. For example, theists cannot demonstrate that their "god exists" is (except only in their minds) an objective truth.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    8July24

    Day seven of the American Monarchy (7 AM)

    So who would you vote for (if you could / will vote in the 2024 election): (A) the old man who (usually) tells truths despite his stutter or (B) the old swine who only squeels (& farts) lies just to keep breathing?
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Lots of evidence there is no such thing as free will.Fire Ologist
    I agree, that's why I said nothing about it.

    If there are no rules, we can’t languish in the anxiety of breaking the rules.
    This statement doesn't make any sense

    The premise here is there is no god, no objective truth.
    Well, that seems to me a "fairly adolescent" – unwarranted – "premise".
  • Is atheism illogical?
    No God, no hope for anything more than nature drawing its breath.Fire Ologist
    Free thinking, free living.
    Why be ethical at all?
    For starters, in order to flourish more than languish...
    Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.
    Perhaps they "seem" so to a child.
    So maybe atheism is not only rational, but accurate, but if it is so, aren’t ethics and truth irrational?
    No more "irrational" than an atheist reducing harm and correcting falsehoods.
    It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves.Fire Ologist
    Yeah, that's how lazy cynics "bullshit" themselves.