course, I realise that Paul was just a preacher. In a way, he is an extremely interesting one because he began as a non believer and had a dramatic conversion experience. — Jack Cummins

Sure, but much like a lot of newbie converts, perhaps he got caught up in the fundamentalist paradigm. Ironically enough it may have much to do with the sin of pride AKA exaggerated self worth-ego.

Nothing new under the sun there!

But hey, that would mean that logic has some benefits too
— 3017amen

Maybe it has indeed. And what better place to find that out than a prestigious philosophy forum like this? — Apollodorus

Oh my gosh, lmao, now that was just plain funny!!

Well at the risk of even more redundancy I think it was William James ( The Varieties of Religious Experiences) who said: Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.

In a similar kind of way Christianity doesn't seem to care to talk about things like what it means to be Spiritual. In philosophy, I believe the concepts of spirituality are described in Existential ism/Schopenhauer theories of metaphysical will and related human sentience and angst (from The book of Ecclesiastes)... . Even Einstein said that if it wasn't for human sentience there would be no need for the concept of religion. I think that squares with God and a conscious Being known as Jesus who apparently had thoughts and feelings about Love.

However, I would take it a step further and say without self-awareness and human consciousness itself, we would not possess the (metaphysical) will to wonder about things like causation, and abstract metaphysical structures (Kant) and the like. Much like the mystery behind mathematical and musical genius, I wonder what Darwin said about the Will?

I also come with a certain amount of anger towards St Paul because I had a friend who killed himself by throwing himself out of a college window after going to an evangelical event and getting in a bad state over the writings of Paul. So, in a way, I am in the odd position of needing to forgive St Paul. The death of this friend was one of the key triggers which lead me to challenge my Christian, or Catholic, background. — Jack Cummins

If you can, please share more about this. This is very tragic, and speaks to the Fundy concerns... . As I've alluded to Fooloso4, Paul was not Jesus; he was just a preacher man.... .

Paul — Fooloso4

And damn those preacher's like Paul, who afterall, was just a man. Unless of course he somehow overshadowed Jesus :razz:

Those sons-a-bitchin/bastuds :razz:

LOL

Hahahaha....funny you mentoned that A. Since we're talking about human behavioral kinds of stuff, I was just telling a friend (viz man-women relationship kinds of things) that while we can't necessarily change people (by and large they have to do it themselves), we do have the ability to positively or negatively influence their behavior.

But hey, that would mean that logic has some benefits too :joke:

Oh well, back to the bottomless chasm of dichotomous contradiction :razz:

The Gnostic writings may have been suppressed for this reason, for making the ideas appear to be mainly symbolic. — Jack Cummins

Good point. Your comment made me think of early church history and how it were simply mere mortals who decided what's to be included/excluded from the Christian Bible. We know Spinoza's stuff was excluded, as well as the referenced Gnostic teachings as well as lost gospels/Apocrypha and so forth. Accordingly, for all we know, certain information relative to human sexuality could have been purposely silenced because it somehow seemed inappropriate at the time. It may seem one has to remember that the Christian Bible is not a medical science book nor a physical science book for that matter.

Broadly speaking, it is worth repeating how ego and rationality seem to overshadow many things, including all of the allegorical & metaphorical benefits/interpretations thereto. Folks seem to forget (particularly Fundi's) that the Bible is inclusive of not only the foregoing errors and omissions, but the inspirational walk of Jesus as a model of humility and love... . And let's not forget translation & interpretation issues, as well as Religious exclusions (the book of Sirach-which is an awesome Wisdom Book- is left out of the King James/Baptist Bible, but included in the Catholic Bible). Then, of course you have rituals that are generally no longer applicable to those of us in the west/sacrificing certain animals.

In spite of those things, perhaps the question there is whether one should dichotomize that information (The Bible) and throw the baby out with the bathwater? The Golden Rule is still applicable. The Book of Ecclesiastes was arguably the genesis of Existentialism. Pragmatically, the Wisdom Books/OT are wonderful, practical guidance for those codes of conduct/ethical norms (not moral) that mirror early Greek moderation standards. Greek philosophy and OT/Christian philosophy borrowed from each other. Overall, for the discerning spirit, I submit both Greek and Christian philosophy has more good than bad.

It is also worth repeating the negative influences in Christianity coming from the religious-right/ Fundamentalist literal interpretations of judgement and damnation, along with supporting the many so-called antiquated thought patterns that are simply not applicable today. In the west, sociopolitical factors vis-à-vis basic human rights and freedoms have clearly evolved. For example in the Church, women's rights have evolved, etc. etc.. And of course science itself has evolved too. And shame on those who embrace extremism... .

Gee, was I being too opinionated Jack :joke:

But it does seem that when we deny the existence of something, the human mind has a tendency to fill the gap with a substitute that may be worse than the original. — Apollodorus

Well said. Maybe it goes back to simple reasonableness and treating like cases likely, different cases differently, not sure. Meaning, if we substitute mystery behind the nature of reality and other phenomena, with pure reason as the holy grail, I think we encounter things like self-contradictory propositions and so forth (think Gödel). Kind of like the idea behind Dialetheism I suppose.

Though it may still somehow escape the atheists. — Apollodorus

Not sure how we can escape the many descriptions/explanations of so-called existence as being considered logically impossible, yet still exist .

Accordingly, we have other opposing concepts that seem to fill the void: disbelief/belief, objective/subjective, a priori/a posteriori, ad nauseum. Kant was on to something when he essentially felt like dichotomizing reality was not the way to go, in the discovery of something novel.

:100: :up:

Sure, and using that same sense of logic, synthetic a priori proposition's are alive and well: all events must have a cause. Perhaps that, in a strange way, is your partial truth.

If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments, they’re based on a lack of them. Convincing arguments supporting theism are lacking, therefore atheism. If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments, then how could it apply to a non-belief that is based on a lack of convincing arguments? — Pinprick

Think of it this way. If theism/a-theism is based on Omniscience (Omnipotence Paradox), descriptions of a deity or God, then the negation of same, is also based on that same illogical premise. In other words, a logically impossible God is certainly a concept that is used as evidence to counter theism.

And so for both the Theist/Atheist, their belief systems (in this descriptive case) are both illogical. And in turn, that it is not necessarily a bad thing, considering other things in life (the nature of existence itself) have illogical descriptions/explanations (consciousness, etc.) in themselves.

Rationality requires a conclusion to be consistent with rational premises: A conclusion that is inconsistent with rational premises is both illogical and irrational. A conclusion that is compelled by irrational premises is logical, but irrational. And a premise that is not sound or valid (unclear) can be incoherent.

Maybe more practically speaking, those kind of logical descriptors beg other questions about what belief systems really are... . For example, what does it really mean for something to be illogical, irrational, logically impossible, so on and so forth. Then, parsing it even further, the angst of recognizing that the laws of nature and logic itself cannot reconcile things like uncertainty (think Heisenberg) and other phenomena (the paradox of time, laws of non-contradiction, etc.), leaves many belief systems in a state of finitude.

One should ask what kind of belief system is appropriate for a given truth value. In laymen's terms, being reasonable means treating like cases likely, different cases differently. And when it comes to ideas about the concept of a God (conceptions of God-cosmological, humanistic, monotheistic, pantheistic, Christian, Buddhist, etc. etc..) what kind of truth value are we looking to understand. Using logic, what is our desire(s) or need to know (Will) about the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe.

In this respect, I agree with physicist Paul Davies in that the complete understanding of existence and its properties may lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought. And that certainly includes pure reason and mathematical structures. Hence one notion of a God.

:100: :up:

Thank you to all who have legitimate concerns, questions, etc.. I will get to all that were addressed to me, and want to also focus on Michael's concerns first because there are some very intriguing points thereto... .

As an ancillary note, I hope that likewise some can find little nuggets of intrigue that inspires them to ask the right questions about this particular subject matter... . (They say that philosophy is about knowing which questions to ask... since maybe the simplest question can lead to some other novel discovery of sorts.)

As a Christian Existentialist, Revelation has always told me that the concept of a God is something beyond logic and pure reason, — 3017amen
I disagree with this point. There is no beyond logic and reason. There is rational and irrational; logical and illogical; truth and falsehood. However, you can say that there are unknowns to non-Omniscient beings such as us. This is not the same as saying there are things beyond logic and pure reason. The statement "there are things beyond logic and pure reason" is as contradictory/irrational as "there are more triangular things than perfect triangles". Any given belief or statement that is contradictory or irrational, is wrong by definition. — Philosopher19

Thank you for your reply!

There is a whole lot to unpack there. My gut reaction is that your thought process boarders on a type of Fundy interpretation of God. Meaning, one ultimately or universally or cosmologically posits the concept of God for a reason that defies reason itself. Think of it as logical necessity.

Further, ask, does logical necessity itself have logical meaning?

Anyway, I think the most important misguided concern that you have is that, for one to associate as you say "wrong" definition standards to the concept of God, one must think they rightfully understand same (the mind of God). I don't think you mean that. Alternatively, what do you mean by "wrong'?

One of them lacks religious faith; the other doesn't. — Cuthbert

Great point, thanks!

The only concern there is, that so-called either/or argument implies some sense of faith, for a lack of a better term (I hate using that term because it doesn't work with logic proper). But I suppose to some degree a belief or disbelief encompasses a type of faith nonetheless. For example, the definition of Disbelief is inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Lack of faith.

Of course, those aren't my definitions. This is one reason why I want to attack the definition standards...albeit we are back to the inescapable notion of philosophy living in words and logic... (?).

I'm more interested in the question regarding how an Atheist justifies their belief/disbelief without the use of the word faith.

keep in mind, some of the phenom we're discussing is existential for Christian's, not necessarily dogmatic, moral, or even metaphysical, etc.. (The Book of Ecclesiastes).

I think existential problems include them all. Kierkegaard's last stage ( religious ) includes the ethical and the aesthetic. But its better if we talk in terms of existential philosophy. — Wittgenstein

Very good point.

However, the world we find ourselves in is partly physical. There's no escape. Yet the real joys come from a limbic system that seems, and is, mostly metaphysical.

I agree, we cannot reduce joy to some physical interactions in our brain at the moment. Some scientist and philosophers have suggested a new framework for neurology. An objective scientific inquiry of consciousness is actually not possible. In order to achieve progress in this field, we would need to redefine the scientific method a bit. The main problem they encounter is as follows : The person providing the data is also the source of data, this interference and inseparable state causes huge discrepancies in data. — Wittgenstein

Well said. At the same time, that implies we cannot escape the subjectivity in nature. Accordingly, and practically speaking, I think it is perplexing to think about why a person who feels sad because it rains too much feels sad...or the other way around... . And as an extreme case, a person commits suicide because they are sad about some aesthetic thing... .

For Christians

...keep in mind, some of the phenom we're discussing is existential for Christian's, not necessarily dogmatic, moral, or even metaphysical, etc.. (The Book of Ecclesiastes).

However, the world we find ourselves in is partly physical. There's no escape. Yet the real joys come from a limbic system that seems, and is, mostly metaphysical.

What does it mean to experience a some-thing. Kant tries to parse that in his theory of aesthetics of course...

Ranging from friendships, occupation, social status and relationships. It overrides every other factor in our social life.

People love telling each other that beauty is subjective etc but this isn't true in the way they see it. — Wittgenstein

Absolutely! The impacts are endless. Whether it's the beautiful neighborhood, the house, the boat, the clothing, the car, the blue sky that makes people happy, the ocean, the mountains...it's an endless phenom.

Generally speaking, maybe another philosophical question to parse could be how does that sense of subjective truth become an objective truth(?). In other words, since we know most people rely on aesthetics to make quality of life decisions, and often very critical life changing one's, does that in some way become a universal truth of sorts... . The paradox seems to be that one's own truth becomes not only subjective, but it's objective in every other way. Kind of like the conscious mind and the subconscious mind being an illogical mix of excluded middle :grin: One truth seems dependent on the other, in subliminal ways.

Great point!

There have been numerous studies on the subject matter, where good looking people
(including myself :grin: ) tend to get promoted faster...and even helped faster when stranded on the roadside, etc. etc.. .

Kant studied the phenomenon of aesthetics. I had argued awhile back with Possibility (a female) and she was in denial about such impact on human nature and all of the impacts and perceptions thereof… . Objectification is alive and well. And it's okay. I think it's the term itself that offends people.

We cannot escape, nor should we shun, the wonderful world of aesthetics (as the case may be).

Hey, how about staying out of this grown-up talk :razz:

You of all people, I wouldn't want to moderate because of your lack of biased restraint.
LOL

If we have someone moderate, it will his or her role to delete (or red flag) ad hominems, strawmen, and such as well as decide (by agreed on rules) who forfeits and thereby who prevails by forfeit. And, my friend, check Google & wiki: insults are fair game in debates but ad hominem fallacies are not. I suggest you learn the difference and stop whining that my insults have been ad hominems when they have not. Anyway, at any rate, insults are almost always bad form with audiences so I won't go for the cheap laughs just to score points. I take debates even more serious than I do free-for-all forum discussions. By all means though, you go first and give me the last word, sir. I'll gladly accomodate you. :up: :smirk: — 180 Proof

Let me first post here some important definitions. Then if we agree on any violation of them, what that violation means, so on and so forth. Again, I'll be brutally honest, Baden had deleted posts that were purely arbitrary based on his ego. He's dropped disparaging F-bombs, etc. etc.. . And if you need proof, I'll find them (unless of course he deleted them).

Let me just get the basic definitions of Straw man, either/or arguments, non sequitur's, etc out of the way first...I'll post in a bit...

All this is still germane to Einstein's observation of fanatical believers like you :razz:

Anyway, "sucker" you'll be going down in 3: “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can’t hit what your eyes can’t see.”

I just the love the emotional free for all idea 180, don't you pea-brain? LOL

Since you will taking down "a-theism", I will present an argument for this moving target to begin the debate, right? And you will defeat my argument in turn? And so on for a limited(?) number of counters and then summations in a final post by each of us (apparently with you getting the last word :sweat: )?

Is that what you have in mind or something else? — 180 Proof

I could go either way, but since I challenged you, I'll go ahead and make my supposition clearer by making my case. Then you can poke holes in it.

I don't really care who gets the last word. I will tell you this though, if there is a lot of ad hominem like I've seen from you in the past regarding my posts, I'll interpret that as you throwing in the towel (and by default I'll win). Because seemingly you have no other arguments. And in that case, it would speak on its own.

As far as moderators, I'll monder that and look through some of the other debates and see how it was handled. To be brutally honest, this site has a bad reputation in that regard, so to find an objective party may be difficult...

I looked through the links, and I think that will work. For example, the links also talked about the Omni-3 stuff, which of course is illogical (in theory, transcends logic). Or even a cosmological God who is partially dependent on temporal Time yet somehow creates Time itself, etc... .

So, if you include the concept of the Omni-3 God as being part of your A-theist belief system, then sure, no exceptions taken.

I'm not going to show all my cards of course (and neither should you) but keep in mind, I'm a Christian Existentialist, so I will attack the most basic of belief systems, including yours. Whether its Time itself, or Omni-3 or whatever. The theme, as I said earlier, has to do with logic. And I will prove that your A-theism is not logical. But instead, is based on something else...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, philosophical, psychological, or existential phenomena, etc, etc....

In other words, and in that sense, the A-theist and the Fundy are no different.

Let me know

Perfect! Like I said earlier I'm on RNR right now so if it's okay with you let's begin our debate on Tuesday! In the meantime we can think about whether we want a moderator, or just open a thread on our own that's (voluntarily) restricted.

By the way, just an ancillary note. If you feel the emotional need in the debate to continue with your usual ad hominem, which is certainly your freedom of choice, do you think that will strengthen or weaken your case,?

Point well taken!

Once again I will prove that your Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. To that end, here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?

Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Yep definitely on both accounts I agree. There are a lot of juvenile actors on this site. But that's okay.

Not to sound presumptuous but Jesus was persecuted for a reason :joke: And just as prophetic, this too is nothing new under the sun.

BTW all,

Please don't let my challenge to 180 derail the other thoughts that were going on in this thread because obviously Einstein had other thoughts and theories similar to those in the OP. For example, his God who doesn't play dice!

Not only that, try to prove that atheism (as I argue it, not as you define it) is false. :wink: — 180 Proof

Good morning everyone! I'm excited for the challenge. Let me just say I'll make a Muhammad Ali prediction, and knock 180 out in the third round! And remember, I'll "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can't hit, what your eyes can't see.”

I have a lot to say about who I would pick for a moderator (since this site is woefully full of angry atheists) but I'll get to that later with specifics.

As I said I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Atheism and its belief systems are not logical. With that, what is your definition you propose that describes your Atheism?

Sounds awesome! Looking forward to it!

Like I say I may at least start the proposal tomorrow morning, and navigate through the rules... And if we both agree to the subject matter and the rules, then let's tentatively go for Tuesday after the holiday.(?).

But the gist of it will be I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Atheism, and its belief systems, are not logical. Now there's a conundrum :razz:

Oh yes. True that!!!
Lol

Awesome yay. it's a holiday weekend but I may open up a thread tomorrow morning if I get time. Actually have your buddy Baden open up a separate category and just you and me duke it out

I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your atheism, your belief system, has no logical basis. It will be based on all of the philosophical disciplines/domains. And I will also prove you will probably end up squirming, trolling, and getting back to your usual ways of attacking people.

Just like Einstein said you would :razz:

Accept?

Okay great open up a thread , and debate me one-on-one about the existence of God. I wager you won't do it :razz:

I'm sure we could find one... You know it's kind of common sense. In other words , a-theism by definition means rejection of theism.

Whether it's founded or unfounded is the intriguing question ... . And that of course speaks to emotion versus logic... .

I'm glad we agree about pantheism. I have a fondness for the Stoic version, which is said to have some similarities with that of Spinoza.

But it seems to me you're merely saying it's likely (based on human tendencies) that atheists "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as you put it. I thought you had actual instances in mind. — Ciceronianus the White

:up:

Yes I did. Did the Fundy example not register?

Well, I wonder whether there are, as you claim, atheists who are unable to accept virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, I think so. I think it's a reasonable inference. Cognitive science 101 says that most humans tend to dichotomize things. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. Let's use a quick example of the televangelist Fundy. One might easily discount their entire presentation, their entire character, their friends and family, and so on due to their affliiation with a belief system. We've also seen the dangers of extremism and violence (alternatevely, Jesus was known to be a pacifist). Of course, in a free society we have every right to choose our likes and dislikes.

Regardless, if you're referring to such as the Golden Rule and virtue as a guide to living, I'm unaware of anyone, let alone any atheist, who reject them because they are associated with Christian philosophy or the belief in any personal God. They may do so because they claim to be nihilists or radical skeptics or something else, but not because they have a "grudge" against Christianity or religion. — Ciceronianus the White

Disagree, primarily from my foregoing comments. It's very normal for that to happen. Sterotypes and paradigms, etc. are what they are for reasons. Hence, one can eaily default to throwing that particular baby out with the bath water. Rightly or wrongly, that's what people do... . History, and cognitive science, teaches us that. No(?).

I think it's apparent that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept the Golden Rule or the desirability of living virtuously. — Ciceronianus the White

Absolutely Cic! No exceptions taken.

One doesn't even have to believe in a creator God; the ancient Stoics, for example, did not but managed somehow to be rather fond of virtue as a goal (in fact, the ultimate good, essential to a good life), and didn't believe in a God which created the world and would monitor the lives of humans to see if they were being nice, punishing those who would not and saving and benefiting those who did. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, no exceptions taken. Earler in the thread, we all talked about pantheism (as we believe Einstien had a particular interest in...). Personnaly, I like Spinoza and have always said that early church history should have allowed its teachings... . Just to be consistent, that too was a mistake in the dichotomization of an otherwise treasure trove of good information. They too, are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (I also think some of the gnostic teachings should have been more or less canonized.)

To this end, not to get too personal, but I live in a beautiful waterfront area wherein I not only thank God every day, I get a spiritual high from nature. One might say a Rocky Mt. High on the east coast :joke:

Pantheism is a good thing... .

The provocation stuff doesn't work on me, Amen. Nor should it on anyone, considering how long you've been doing it and how obvious it is. — Baden

I agree it's obvious it bothers you by you dropping the F-bomb. So are you lying to us on the forum then?

I've gone through the stage myself of being vocal and angry about religion — Baden

Dude! You haven't shaken it; you're still angry!!! I mean, dropping the F-bomb :razz:

I don't think you get it. I really don't give a fuck. You can believe what you like. — Baden

...now now, there atheist. Like I said, your emotion is getting the best of you :joke:

Oh well, come back when you have the courage, otherwise, as some would say, put up or shut up.
LOL