It doesn't really give you a key though. Camus is still dodging by assigning meaning and value to living. Nihilism says there is no meaning or value. — Darkneos

I don't see the connection between there being no meaning or value and not having any personal meaning or values. The entire point of Camus is that if there is no transcendent meaning then we are radically free to choose our own. Millions of people have done this with no problems.

amus doesn't matter. The relevant one is Jean Genet. Life is not a pleasure, but suicide consists of a low level of serotonin in the nervous system. — Miguel Hernández

I like some of your points here. No doubt that a person with a reason for living will more likely endure even in a concentration camp. Therapist Dr Victor Frankl devised Logotherapy as a consequence of his time in a concentration camp (he wanted to understand why some people survived and others did not) and his ideas are far more relevant that what we can offer.

Camus used suicide as a frame for his version of existentialism. It's a device.

Is religeon primarily concerned with human Morals? Or primarily with religeous Ritual? Or primarily concened with advice about mundane concerns of day to day living? Or primarily concerned with group activities such as Bingo games or picnics? Or economics? Or all of the above in equal amounts? — Ken Edwards

Unanswerable questions. Depends on the religion, the country, the culture, the individual.

Well, what is the difference between modernity and modernism? — TheHedoMinimalist

Yeah. There is a thesis in this subject and we have yet to define terms. Modernism is long gone and was a hugely influential movement that ultimately led to post-modernism.

This original statement:

have noticed that there seems to be quite a few philosophers who have a tendency of spending a lot of time criticizing modernity. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think this lacks precision. Thinkers across millennia are often critical of the era they live in. Each contemporary era has its preoccupations and ideas worthy of criticism. What is it about the present era that sticks out for you?

ringing up bigotry as somehow intrinsic to any of this is confabulation. Who is really comforting themselves here? No offence. — Paul S

You really don't understand my point. I like your use of the word confabulation.

Paul, you made a rather dubious observation that you believe because it resonates. I simply stated that things resonating are not a good pathway to truth. And yes this is the same approach that is used by some racists to justify their position.

If you think this is saying that I am associating racism with your point then I can't help that. How about this: people believe that Mohammad was the profit of Allah because it resonates with them. They are certain that Jesus was merely a man, falsely described as God by some. They hold this position because it resonates better with them. It just feels right.

So the mystery of the origin of life is very real. — Gary Enfield

No one denies this. Responsible scientists do not. The best answer to the question of abiogenesis is we don't yet know how it happened. But filling the hole with a fantasy because don't yet have an answer is not cool either. I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens.

Okay. So fairies aren't real, you say. But if someone were to experience a fairy, doesn't it make it real to them? Imagine your child has had a very vivid dream about a fairy. Wouldn't it be cruel to say the experience isn't real? — TaySan

Really? We were talking about epistemology and now you are talking about parenting. Where is the connection? Would you tell a child that their dream about a monster taking them away in the night was true?

Just because someone has an experience of something doesn't mean it is real. And a world that encourages everyone to 'experience' their delusion as 'real' is not helpful.

Okay. Then give me an example of a linguistic concept that isn't real, if you can. — TaySan

A fairy.

You're cherry picking. That's not at all in the spirit of what I was getting at. — Paul S

Inaccurate use of the term cherry picking. I was simply restating the point you made and providing an assessment of it.

The fact that you also have other ideas is not lost on me. In relation to one of these:

Theists are open to the possibility that something divine or supernatural can interfere with an experience and effect the outcome - that's very like an indeterministic outlook of the universe.

Atheists are not accepting of a divine or supernatural influence on experience that can effect an outcome - that's very like a deterministic outlook of the universe. — Paul S

That's limited. Some atheists only hold that there are no grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists. They do not say they know everything or that everything is knowable. Some theists are very closed to new ideas. Unless it is as per theri version fo scripture is is untrue.

What do you think about my argument that God exists as a linguistic concept. Therefore God exists as a construct in our mind. Therefore God is real? — TaySan

This kind of idea comes up all the time, doesn't it? Lots of things exist as linguistic concept already but that doesn't make them 'real', it makes them a concept.

To all The Bible can't be held in one mind... — TheMadFool

The list of books for which this might be true would be immense.

I was reading that 80% of marriages end up soon after in divorce and that 10% are unhappy that they are married. — Thinking

This is not necessarily a bad thing. What is the reason you are dismayed by this?

here is love and Camus does speak of it... — Cate

Perhaps we are to assume he was too busy being estranged from life, experiencing absurdity to truly see other people.

I prefer Non-Whites — 180 Proof

There are other problems inherent in defining groups only in opposition to another (in this case dominant) group.

I've explained it several times. Let's move on. :smile:

The best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible — Dan Barker

I've heard this quote for decades attributed to many people including Twain.

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” Isaac Asimov

Many people have agreed with this though bitter experience. Especially those Christians who leave their faith. I heard a Jesuit priest putting it in reverse:

"The stronger the faith, the less likely it has been spoiled by knowledge of Scripture."

"The situation is hopeless. We must take the next step."
- Pablo Casals - cellist

Theism just resonates more with me and feels more like how it really is, at least for me. It's at the edge of perception, or what an Atheist would call delusion, it's subjective and fuzzy so it's not like I can really support my view. — Paul S

I think that is a decent insight. Your belief is not supported by a strong epistemology and amounts, if you don't mind me saying to: "I believe because it's more subjectively comforting to me."

One problem with this approach is that this is the same justification people often use for racism or any number of bigotries. 'It just feels to me that X race of people are inferior to the rest of us - this just resonates more with me.' It can be a trap to hold a belief merely because it is comforting or because you were socialized to think it.

Well, as far as I know, what is said must stand on its own, who said it is irrelevant. Ref: Epicurean dilemma. — TheMadFool

I'm sorry I am not able to make this clear enough. My fault. What I'm trying to say is that God is an occult notion and Socrates (even if he never lived) is merely a dramatized method of philosophy.

There is no preexisting requirement that you believe Socrates existed. All you need to do is read the material and it speaks for itself. You cannot say the same thing about God in the Abrahamic tradition. Belief is the first step towards taking a moral position - without this you won't accept any of the 613 commandments, let alone the famous 10. As the believer will often argue, an atheist can follow the ten commandments but is still a sinner unless he believes in and loves God.

I hear you.

was saying that it seems like (most) people will do just about anything to obtain something for nothing (and the great majority of it is perfectly legal). — synthesis

Minimising work is often a key driver of human behaviour - I suspect we are hard wired for shortcuts. This seems to be the wellspring of most technology. We are a time saving, effort saving species. Given that you have defined a problem or situation, do you have some suggestions towards a solution?

Fair enough. Fundamentalists are monomaniacs and it is generally beyond our capacity to address this, whether it be political fundamentalists or Jungian versions :smile: . Once a person is fully infected by a doctrine, they see the world entirely in those terms and anything which contradicts their 'certainty' is viewed with rancour. These sorts of monomaniacs are pretty common on discussion forums. The irony is, to be human is to dismiss ideas that don't work. In this activity we all need to take care not to become the kind of shrill pest I described.

What I don't understand is the way in which the whole area of religious thinking has to come down to those who see the central issues viewing in literal traditional ways(Christian or other views), or the other alternatives of atheism. Both seem so extreme. — Jack Cummins

Not sure what you mean by the 'whole area of religious thinking' not sure such an area exists. Maybe you mean the common or general discourse on religion and spirituality. But is that in fact an accurate account? Fundamentalists abound in all areas - from economics to religion. There are many more nuanced discussions on theism and atheism e.g., David Bentley Hart for one.

People often get lost in comparative religion and see what they want to see. Given that the subject is crammed with vagueness and deepities and unverifiable premises and centuries of symbolism and ambiguities, how exactly will you tell good from bad and what are you hoping to get from this?

I think that the better question would be is what evidence do you have to suggest that Jung was a 'crank'? I think it is difficult to measure his ideas and probably the only way you could do this would be to measure the way in which his ideas or Jungian therapy have a positive impact on people's lives. — Jack Cummins

Jung was a 'psychologist' whose interest in myth ran away with him. His collective unconscious idea has rarely been taken seriously except by artists who use it in many ways because it feels right to them. It is no different to astrology - which persists despite the evidence. Jordan Peterson has made Jung popular again in some circles.

It's not unusual for bad or false ideas have a positive impact on people's lives, that doesn't mean this is a good thing.

What makes you think it is necessary to try to classify or group together myths in the first place? What precisely does this provide you?

I don't see how believing in the existence of Socrates has anything to do with the merits/demerits of his philosophy? — TheMadFool

Well, Socrates isn't God, so the analogy is not apropos. We are not talking about a man's ideas. We are talking about the intrinsic moral position inherent in God belief which I have already addressed. Perfectly fine if you disagree, but I see no way out of it.

Carl Jung spoke of the importance of dreams and those coming from the collective unconscious. I do believe that the idea of the collective unconscious is useful for thinking about as a source from which images and stories evolve. — Jack Cummins

Is there any evidence that Jung was anything more than a crank? There is absolutely no evidence for any of his ideas (which I studied formally some years ago). Why would you be preoccupied by other dimensions when evidence for them is scant and there is no reason to believe, even if they can be imagined, that they matter to us at all.

Well, I'm approaching the issue from a Doestoevskyian point of view, the view that "if god didn't exist, anything would be permissible" — TheMadFool

Dostoevsky always had this the wrong way around. It should be: "With God anything is permissible." If you want to build systemic human rights violations look to religious behaviour across time and even today. The most dangerous (and ethically empty) people on earth are those who think they know what God wants us to do. And of course, religious morality is subjective and based on personal preferences of believers who think they have the right interpretation of scripture. God remains silent on morality.

What is another dimension and how does art lead you there?

Well, this in no way proves that believing in God is, in and of itself, a moral act in the same category as saving someone's life or helping the poor, right? — TheMadFool

Don't see how they are not the same. Remember moral behaviour for God is simply that which pleases him. The fist step is belief. Tick. Not believing has been traditionally seen as an immoral position by many believers. Hence, believing is a moral position.

Isn't the problem of induction something in philosophy as well ? — Swimmingwithfishes

It's a problem of epistemology so it covers the waterfront.

Nevertheless, there are also another kind of atheists who think there is nothing afterwards. — javi2541997

Of course there are. But atheism specifically means just one thing, hence the name a theism - Greek: "without God". Any other beliefs are a separate matter. But sure, some atheists share a range of secular humanist beliefs.

I haven't ever encountered a man of the cloth taking the position that mere belief amounts to a moral act, an act of goodness, an act that would be equivalent to established good actions such as charity or saving someone for example. — TheMadFool

Not many believers have read much scripture and often traditions don't come form this source. Actually it is pretty common for a Christian, Jew or Muslim (especially the latter) to see the atheist as making an immoral choice right out of the gate. In fact in Islam (in 13 countries), atheism is punishable by death.

So I guess not believing in any kind of God goes further than “not having any proof of his existence” — javi2541997

No. All an atheist is is a person who doesn't believe there are sufficient reason to believe in any form of God. There are atheists who believe in astrology and reincarnation and souls and all kinds of supernatural stuff. Some Buddhists are atheists.

There are no moral differences between atheists and theists - both camps seem to be doing fine in the ethics department as far as I can tell. — TheMadFool

Untrue - Islamic State, just one example, demonstrate that religions - which all have their fundamentalist expressions - cab be ethically repulsive. And there are any number of vile acts committed by religions of all sorts from sexual abuse to bigotry.

Ancient does not refer to a specific timeframe. Generally it means the distant past - which can encompass a very wide period. Words like 'ancient' are thrown around with cavalier imprecision all the time.

Therefore I really don't know why atheists are so often criticized and thought to have a baseless set of beliefs, when their reasoning may indeed be more credible than that of someone who basically has no more than faith in the existence of God. — BBQueue

Atheism isn't a belief system as such. Atheism has one idea. That no good reasons have been provided to believe in God. Atheism is not a school of thought or a system as such.

There are however belief systems that also include atheism - secular humanism - the most common. Then you may have a set of beliefs to quibble with.

I'm agnostic atheist because the evidence for the existence of any god isn't strong enough to convince me but I don't claim to know there are no gods. — GTTRPNK

Nice. Most nuanced atheists would argue that there are no reasonable grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists. They would not say there is no God. An important distinction. In essence a more nuanced atheist would probably take the view that they are open to the idea of a deity existing if and when there is reasonable evidence.

This is one of those airy quotes that you can interpret however you want. I'm usually weary of quotes that reduce a whole disciple to a maxim. They usually only work when they are by humorists. In relation to the functions of philosophy or science - you can argue pretty much anything.

But only because government is expressed through the state, and not through the indirect interaction of individuals. — Gus Lamarch

This idea does interest me - can you provide any examples where a robust egoist system has been achieved or close to being achieved?