The discussion is to a large extent a proxy for ethical issues - the ubiquitous presumption of theists that it is they alone who engage with morals. Hence the need felt by Lewis and Chesterton and Newman. — Banno

It may be more accurate to say they believed there could be no morals without theism, or rather their brand ot it. Lewis and Newman were odd ducks to begin with, I believe. Lewis seemed to believe that Christianity was "manly" is some sense. Newman thought the real world wasn't this one. Chesterton could be witty and I think would have been good company.

Your OP is very coy. Oh...why would anyone object to the things that atheists say about religion. It ignores the fact that our culture, and this forum, are full of atheists who aggressively attack religious beliefs and show disrespect for religious institutions. They are not passive. They are self-righteous and bitter. Many clearly are reacting to bad experiences with religion in their youth.

Which is fine. Just don't act all surprised when religious people respond back. The atheist's attacks on religion are more than that. They are often also political attacks on traditional culture and spiritual values masquerading as rational argument. I am not a theist, but I am interested in atheism because I think it is generally a mean-spirited, irrational, and generally poorly argued sham. — T Clark

Oh here it is. Sorry.

quote="T Clark;777432"]Oh...why would anyone object to the things that atheists say about religion.[/quote]

I can think of some reasons. But what I'd like to address is the reasons for the intensity of what strikes me as a futile debate.

Just don't act all surprised when religious people respond back. — T Clark

I'm not surprised. I wonder why they bother to do so, however, when in doing so they defend their religious beliefs (belief in God, I mean) as established by proofs which they think rebut claims made that there is no proof. Why is rebuttal important to them? Why should there be proof of the existence of God?

One can also wonder why atheists find it necessary to establish there is no proof. The claims of the "new atheists" (I haven't read them) seem directed more to religious institutions than to proving there is no God, but I may be wrong. Those I think are fair game. But if one goes around proclaiming there is no God, proselytizing as it were, I wonder why they bother to do so.

unlike Ciceronianus's cutie pie faux surprise. — T Clark

Oh dear. I'm never cute. It's true, though, that I'm not surprised by much. Still, "cutie pie faux surprise" is interesting. In what sense did I express surprise? If I did, how was it faux? How was it "cutie pie" (unless that's intended to qualify "faux" and not "surprise", in which case how was the "faux" "cutie pie")?

The second amendment was only interpreted as it is in 2008. Not long ago. That itself is also an affect of neoliberalism, as is the depression that arises from years of neoliberal policies that have destroyed the working and middle class. — Mikie

I'm not sure how neoliberal policies impacted the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we must deal with the Second Amendment and views of it as they exist now, not as they may have been in those halcyon days before neoliberalism, when guns and opiates posed no problems.

The states with greater gun regulations, like here in NE, have far less mass shootings — Mikie

Indeed. Just look at California.

Prohibition should have taught us something about the efficacy of regulation of stimulants, depressants, pain-killers, etc. Opiates like fentanyl have a legitimate use as a pain-killer. It is being abused. Is it being abused because of neoliberalism, or because people want it? If its use is outlawed or limited by law, what is the likelihood it won't be abused?

For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. — Wayfarer

Yes. But I don't understand the need, or even the desire, they would have in engaging with atheists, unless they feel it's possible to contend with them on their "home field" as it were. I've never understood Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, or Cardinal Newman, because I think their arguments, such as they are, don't work. Nor is there any need (or so I think) to for them to debate with atheists. They need only believe.

I don't believe in ontological idealism or in higher consciousness either (I don't say they are untrue, I just have no good reason to accept them at this point) but these beliefs are separate to my disbelief in god/s. God of course is just a word and understood by some (Rupert Spira springs to mind) as more primitive language for oneness or higher awareness. — Tom Storm

I'm partial to the thought of an immanent deity, and think that the universe evokes a belief in such a deity, as some Stoics claim (and perhaps Spinoza as well), or as C.S. Peirce suggests with his "Musement." I find that more reasonable than a theist God in that it's less preposterous. But evocation isn't proof and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.

The only way I know of to do that, here, is if those who are atheists respond to the OP saying they refute belief in any form. I'm not aware of any book or article addressing atheist views on Spinoza's God, for example.

A more interesting question would be whether atheists generally are intent on refuting belief in any and all forms of deity or transcendence. And if so, what motivates them to concern themselves with the beliefs of others. — Janus

I think that question would arise, yes, if that turns out to be the case.

All I can say is that I hope I don’t sound like Jack D Ripper. — Mikie

Well you don't, but I wouldn't let that stand in the way of a laugh, as you see.

Even so, I don't think it's appropriate to blame the problems you note on neoliberalism, just as I don't think it was appropriate to blame communism for the problems of our Great Republic (or for polluting our precious bodily fluids, for that matter). I doubt that government efforts to ban or limit the purchase of guns or opiates will be successful, so I don't see deregulation as the source of their prevalence. Here in God's Favorite Country, we love our guns and our drugs and those of us who want them will find a way to get them, and those who wish to profit from their sale will find a way to provide them.

My personal belief is that the "War on Drugs" is futile and hugely expensive. As for guns our freakish regard for the Second Amendment will always stand in the way of effective regulation.

Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism. — Mikie

Quite right. Because it saps all of our precious bodily fluids.

You do wonder what the effect must be of digital pornography suddenly appearing in cultures which had previously been characterised by extremely censorious and proscriptive sexual mores, where women are veiled and extramarital sex is punishable by death. — Wayfarer

Yes. I shouldn't assume that Christians alone would condemn pornography. I prefer the view taken of sex in antiquity. Visit Pompeii if you haven't already, and see how the frequent depiction of the phallus (a good luck symbol) and frescoes displaying various sexual acts make modern visitors nervous.

If only Anthony Comstock was here to protect us from it. Or at least John Ashcroft.

I wonder whether this "problem" is peculiarly American. Or perhaps Christian.

Some of you need to watch more non-American films — Maw

Don't miss the Vatican fashion show in Fellini's Roma

In no particular order:

The Duellists (Outstanding swordplay with various weapons, during the Napoleonic Wars; what could be better? Makes me wish I could still fence sabre without hurting myself);
Seven Beauties (The best of Lina Wertmuller's cheerful films);
Fellini's Roma (What can I say? I'm a big fan of Rome);
The Godfather
Citizen Kane
2001: A Space Odyssey
Chinatown
Dr. Strangelove
There Will Be Blood
A Man for All Seasons

When has that ever stopped people doing anything? — Vera Mont

Dum spiro, spero.

Judging the universe is rather like waging war on Neptune, as Gaius Caligula is said to have done. You may judge it as you please, and even be proud of judging, but frankly you can't help but seem rather silly.

What 'status' other than 'Banned' would be appropriate? — Amity

"Unclean"? Then the member would be untouchable, but there would be the hope of a cure.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. But it’s also the situation we should expect if God wants to be discovered fresh, by each person: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other. — Art48

Hmm. So, the situation we should expect if God does not exist is, also, the situation we should expect if God does exist? He would have to exist, I suppose, if he "wants to be discovered." Odd how the failure of religion to convince us God exists somehow establishes that he not only exists, but wants us to believe he does.

Well, the question you asked was "How much power and authorityshould the Pope have?" (Emphasis added). I was raised Catholic, but haven't been a practising one for many years. I'm inclined to say he should have none. Clearly, though, he does have power and authority. What authority and power he should have may be something very different from what authority and power he actually has. They're two different considerations.

How much power and authority should the Pope have? — javi2541997

My personal belief is that the doctrine has its basis in the papal assumption of the title of Pontifex Maximus ("Highest Priest") held by Roman Emperors. As Highest Priest the Emperors had the authority to make final and binding decisions regarding the state religion. Before the Principate, the pontifex maximus had a diminished role. Gratian was the first Roman Emperor to reject the title in deference to the Church, in the late 4th century C.E.

Who but a believing Catholic would be interested in this question, though?

How could anyone emphasize ethics more than Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? — Athena

Well, I was comparing the Roman Stoics (e.g. Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius) to the early Greek Stoics, and specifically Chrysippus. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not at issue. But at least
in regard to practical wisdom and public life in politics, I would think the Roman Stoics would be superior to that trio in some respects, given the fact that Socrates got himself killed by the Athenians, Plato made a fool of himself in Syracuse and Aristotle for about 8 years was the teacher of Alexander, one of history's greatest autocrats who presided over the slaughter of who knows how many unfortunates in his conquests. Many Roman Senators were Stoics, which led them to oppose the injustices of some of the emperors (and got them killed).

I

Perhaps you can give us an example of the greater humanism Rome introduced? — Athena

The Stoic contribution would probably be through Stoicism's conception of the "brotherhood of man." The Stoic Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher, taught the equality of men and women. Aristotle thought all non-Greeks inferior. The Roman contribution would likely be through its law and natural law jurisprudence (an offshoot of Stoicism), and the eventual extension of Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire.

Would Nietzsche be a good stoic? — Athena

Nietzsche's Amor Fati is thoroughly Stoic, though he never acknowledged that to be the case, to my knowledge. Elsewhere he famously berated the Stoics in one of his many rants.

I do not know what the Romans added or took away from the Athenian effort and I am curious about that change. Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism? — Athena

There are some fragments of the writings of the Greek Stoics available, but as far as I know we're aware of them only because they're referred to by others. In addition to Zeno, we have some information regarding Cleanthes (Zeno's successor as leader of the Stoa) and Chrysippus, his successor, and quotes from them. You can find the Hymn of Cleanthes easily enough on the Web. Chrysippus is credited with defending Stoicism against its early critics.

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage. Also, at least compared to Chrysippus whose focus was on epistemology and logic, and the theory underlying Stoicism, the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom. That emphasis makes it more sympathetic to most.

Stoic "apatheia" is freedom from emotional disturbance, not "apathy" as currently defined. Tranquility was valued, as was equanimity. The period of Roman Stoicism was, in fact, a fairly turbulent one in the Empire, including trouble with the Germanic tribes which kept Marcus Aurelius away from Rome for many years, trouble with Parthia, the onset of Christianity and failure of traditional religion, the rise of the mystery religions; the Bar Kochba rebellion in Palestine. Stoicism had a broad appeal, and its most significant Roman adherents included an emperor and a slave.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Really? I had no idea. Perhaps he wasn't a philosopher, then.

God's teeth. Only those lacking a sense of humor would complain of irony. As well complain of wit and the witty.

But, now that I think of it, I can't think of a witty philosopher. Wittgenstein, of course, was notoriously lacking in humor.

I think it was part of an anti-metaphysical/quietist movement which continues to this day, and in that sense remains relevant.

Hilarious...you expect me to say what it is that can't be said.
— Janus
Indeed, there might be a sort of catharsis in the realisation that this is not doable, and perhaps the absence of a something to which "ineffable" refers. — Banno

Where there is no thing, there's nothing to address philosophically. There's no object to be known, and philosophy subsists on objects which can be known and described (in words). So, it pretends there is one.

So where does that leave ↪Janus? — Banno

Janus is the Roman god of doorways and gates, also transitions, usually depicted as having two faces, not two asses. But the Romans didn't use js, so in Latin it would be spelled Ianus.

Makes sense...Ciceroni-anus the execrable...or excremental... :joke:
23 minutes ago — Janus

Actually, ianus is the significant part of the appellation, typically used in Latin in adjectives formed from proper names. So, Ciceronianus means broadly speaking someone like Cicero or a follower of Cicero, instead of Cicero's anus. But it's an interesting interpretation.

And here you are! — frank

Ah, but I wasn't summoned, you see. That would require evocation by use of a name, as one would the Lord of the Flies, i.e. Beelzebub, the chief follower of Satan/Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost.

Well, that's what I've heard. I've also heard other things about him, which, of course, do nothing to diminish his glory.

I see the Lord of the Flies has made an appearance, despite my restraint, which was all for nought. Or should I say "Nothing"? But perhaps it's to be expected that where the ineffable is a topic, the execrable must be summoned.

All we can do is strive to use words to better understand the nature of morality, surely not a futile philosophical undertaking. — RussellA

By referring to "the nature of morality" you identify it as a thing, and so are trapped into thinking of it as if is one. Why should we do that?

You are I think right about the flies. — Banno

I wonder--who would be the Lord of the Flies? Could it be...but no, I won't say the name.

But isn't it just those things that we cannot express well in words, such as justice, ethics, morality, honour, wisdom, etc, that are exactly those things which we should strive to express well in words?
3 hours ago — RussellA

I would say no, if you mean arriving at all-inclusive definitions of that they are; treating them as objects which can be definitively described, objects of knowledge if you will.

. Folk suppose that since there are things that are done rather than said, there must be something that is unsayable. — Banno

Those folk are, I think, among the flies referred to by Wittgenstein. But so are those who think it possible, and necessary or somehow beneficial, to categorize everything, like that relentless categorizer Aristotle. That, of course, requires the use of words. But there are things that we cannot express in words well, or accurately, or adequately and using words to express them (which we do all the time; which philosophers do all the time) is futile and worse "bewitching" as Wittgenstein might say. As to such things, we're better off remaining silent.

Perhaps the answer has to be that there is not anything about which we cannot talk. — Banno

Well, I think that's certain. That's not to say that's to our credit or benefit, though. I think Wittgenstein wasn't claiming there were subjects we couldn't talk about. Instead, I think he was saying that there are subjects we shouldn't talk about because by doing so we let "language go on holiday" or are bewitched by it, and do not gain by doing so.

How would they know they want to read something the don't even know exists? — Vera Mont

They'll know what their parents and the parents of others, and their teachers, think that they should or should not read quite readily. Banning or trying to ban books doesn't tale place in secrecy at that level. And media and social media will make such information readily available.

As for my schooling, we read what was typically read in so-called "English" classes at that time--some Shakespeare, some Dickens, Catcher in the Rye (for some reason), some Jack London, some Conrad, even some Dostoyevski, some books I can't easily recall but the titles of which I'd no doubt recognize if confronted with them. But schoolwork is schoolwork; it's to be tolerated, it doesn't inspire. I did quite well, but learned to appreciate great works of prose and poetry not when in school, but out of it.

Of late, some state legislatures have banned certain textbooks from their public schools, not on the grounds of inadequate or incorrect information but on the grounds of inappropriate subject matter. — Vera Mont

I think you'll find that most banning or challenges take place through local school districts or governments. Given the peculiar fascination with and dread of sex in our Great Republic, my guess would be that most books proscribed have to do with sex.

There are bans, and bans. Those addressed to what children are required to read will inevitably arouse the suspicions of parents, and the state (here at least) has little interest in acting contrary to those suspicions. Some bans are worth fighting, some are not.

Before you despair, consider--while in school, particularly in elementary and high school, how many books which you were compelled to read as a student influenced you in any significant respect? I doubt there were many. I likewise doubt that any banned book students are compelled (told by a teacher) to read would greatly influence a student. If they want to read them, they'll find a way to do so regardless of any ban. If they don't, reading the books will probably be considered just another dreary chore.