The Atheist Corner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

There are many different ideas of what faith is. To me faith and logic are not in opposition at all. Logic is a part of the mental realm, faith is a part of the spiritual realm. There is no part of my faith which I would use, if it transcend, rather than conflict with, the logical. It comes down to ontology and language, if we look at it philosophically, and it comes down to symbols or feelings we can't express, if it comes down to sense-experience. So then, if in someone's intuition is in agreement with one's analytical reasoning, then to that person, their faith and logic aren't at odds.

---

The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.

Also, on a related train of thought, is there any logical reason to believe in a "spiritual realm?"

Jozanny, It's your thread, and for atheist discussion. So say what you wish. I'll do my best to be a quiet listener.

This is in reference to your post #40 to me. A few other posts slipped in between.

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

Jozanny, sorry. I promise to stick to the topic from now on. :)

Holy smoke did this thread take off. I'm glad I'm not joining this conversation. All I have to say is that when one relies on "rationality" you have essentially lost the argument. Rationality is a set of logic within a context. What is logical today is not logical tomorrow or to someone else within a different context. Newton appeared perfectly logical until Einstein showed differently. Thomas Aquinas has a logical proof of God's existence that was perfectly rational in the 12th century. I think of rationality as seeing and thinking inside a box. It depends on what you have closed off within the box. No one can rely on rationality and truly have a sound argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

---

I think I'm in love. :brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Holy smoke did this thread take off. I'm glad I'm not joining this conversation. All I have to say is that when one relies on "rationality" you have essentially lost the argument. Rationality is a set of logic within a context. What is logical today is not logical tomorrow or to someone else within a different context. Newton appeared perfectly logical until Einstein showed differently. Thomas Aquinas has a logical proof of God's existence that was perfectly rational in the 12th century. I think of rationality as seeing and thinking inside a box. It depends on what you have closed off within the box. No one can rely on rationality and truly have a sound argument.

---

I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century; more people simply know better now. What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Jozanny, It's your thread, and for atheist discussion. So say what you wish. I'll do my best to be a quiet listener.

---

You read like a man of nice manner, thank you, but when it comes to LN I am a communist. I only started the thread.

Quote:

---

Posted by aabbcc
Jozanny, sorry. I promise to stick to the topic from now on.

---

Nonsense. You go girl:thumbs_up

Lying low. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.

---

I'm not sure faith necessarily acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments, rather it acts a different first principle. The problem in all these discussions is that ultimately you cannot prove or disprove G-d. So you're always playing language games and trying to one up your opponent on little things like whether the universe REQUIRES someone to have pushed the button, except this still doesn't DISPROVE Aquainas either. It only calls the SURETY of his argument into question not the POSSIBILITY that he may in fact be correct.

The Theist's argument generally fails when they try to find something that definitively proves G-d's existence (you can't), and the atheist cannot disprove G-d either, so they're left with attacking the theist's weak attempt to PROVE G-d's existence. I think that captures most of what has REALLY been going on in this thread thus far.

By the way, I looked at your profile. Are you really only 17? You're impressively smart.

I think on the subject of theism and logic/credibility comes from Tertullian (ca. 155 - ca. 220). He is the first person to separate philosophy from theology, by declaring that philosophy only accidentally comes to conclusions, whereas scripture gives definite answers. This may seem like a crazy illogical answer, yet when put into practice it makes perfect sense.

People want to know how to live their lives. They do not have time to read 3000 years of philosophy, and come up with conclusions based out of the inconclusive arguments of history. They want something that says, "do this, do that, and you will be a good person, and perhaps go to heaven." Most people don't have time to fret over whether it is true or not, and simply use it as a foundation of structure in their lives.

If somebody believes got to exist, and the scriptures to be true, and follows them to a point of personal satisfaction, then they are most likely going to be left with a calmer, more peaceful life, than some other people, who have no sense of meaning, and therefore suffer from an anxiety of identity, and lack of direction. Most people don't read philosophy. Most people just want to go to work, make some money, support their families, and enjoy their lives. Religion gives them the ability to do it very easily, and in some cases, allows them to become absolved of any guilt they have for a small price (often cash).

It makes no difference whether god exists or not from the perspective of the believer, because to him, he exists, and therefore his promises are true. With that in mind, the believer is able to enjoy his life the way he believes is right, and therefore be content with his successes, and at peace with his failures. Who cares if he is wrong, if he is happy.

I am an atheist, but that is a personal choice. I hold nothing against believers, as long as they don't knock on my door early, and come bringing pamphlets. In that case, I kindly tell them I am to busy helping to deliver the anti-Christ from my roommate's womb, and slam the door in their faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century;

---

Are you saying that no one was rational in the qworld until the 20th century? That's pretty elitist and frankly when you have the reputation of Thomas Aquinas as a thinker I will bow to you.

Quote:

---

more people simply know better now.

---

Correct. And in the future they may know even more than you that may alter the rational thought process from yours.

Quote:

---

What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?

---

So it increases? That's what I'm saying. Why would that prove that your logic will be correct in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

The Theist's arguments generally fail when they try to find something definitively prove G-d's existence (you can't), and the atheist's cannot disprove G-d either, so they're mostly left attacking the theist's weak attempt to PROVE G-d's existence. I think that captures most of what has REALLY been going on in this thread thus far.

---

Yes, but what I wanted, and should have known better than to expect, was a corner where X number of like-minded non-believers could offer observations for further study. Bloom has done this already-- and I think, despite critical detraction of his thesis, that he is right, and Christianity in America has metastasized into something other than Reformation Christianity which came out of Europe.

I am trying to learn how to become my own Christopher Hitchens, so to speak, and make some money off of lay socio-cultural phenomena. I know that is a big bite, and an ambitious mouthful to swallow, but I always have an idea file.

One for disability articles, one for story ideas, one for mainstream pieces.

Like you, or JBI, perhaps-- I am not interested in the same old metaphysical tautology--but in what we can say on the basis of observation, which is not to say member theists can't pitch in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Are you saying that no one was rational in the qworld until the 20th century? That's pretty elitist and frankly when you have the reputation of Thomas Aquinas as a thinker I will bow to you.

---

You are too nice, Virgil. Because frankly most of the arguments in this thread are childish pointless argumentantions. Just like. Aquinas, not logical? Hah, one of the most logicals thinkers humankind ever produced, anyone denying it is just unaware of what logical means (It does not means right, logic can be falalcious) or Voltaire, another king of logical argumentantion who was a deist. Or Bacon. Or, hey, there goes the progression of human reasoning.
But those people are born in a age of certain and not reasoning (which is not telling what is right, but measuing arguments) and have no idea about what they are talking about. If god old Thomas or Agostine are around they would proof without proof that god exist and those atheists would just be lost.

Which Bacon are you talking about? Roger or Francis (I assume one of the two).

Quote:

---

The religion that most Americans adhere to "masks itself as Protestant Christianity yet has ceased to be Christian." Bloom elaborated:

There are indeed millions of Christians in the United States, but most Americans who think they are Christians truly are something else, intensely religious but devout in the American Religion...

---

I think this holds a lot of truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

But those people are born in a age of certain and not reasoning (which is not telling what is right, but measuing arguments) and have no idea about what they are talking about. If god old Thomas or Agostine are around they would proof without proof that god exist and those atheists would just be lost.

---

It has been a long day since I struggled with logic, but if I understand you correctly, the simple construct of a proper syllogism proves nothing, except that the person who created the syllogism is a successful user of logic.

I am not sure what you're getting at. In my Intro to Philosophy, there is an argument for God which goes:

If I can think of X, then X is possible and can exist.

So what? Logic is an attempt to make language function as a mathematical construct, and you can create all kinds of paradoxes, like Zeno's paradox of motion, which seemingly contains true contradictions.

It is a game which in no way advances Theism as an epistemological reality.

Belief and argument are not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

I think I'm in love. :brow:



I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century; more people simply know better now. What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?

---

Actually, Aquinas' work is perfectly rational, even now. The major philosophical critics of Aquinas (starting with Ockham) have rarely, if ever, questioned his rationality, or logic. The issue has rather been one of certain premises upon which his logic was based. It is not an issue of our knowing anything 'better' now (whatever that may mean in this context) but instead our having decided that certain rules could be changed.

Specifically in the case of Ockham, he questioned the metaphysical necessity of 1) essences (which gave rise to nominalism), and 2) the existence of Aristotelian categories involving relations. The result was the conclusion that Aquinas' enterprise of forming a seamless joining of Aristotle and Christian doctrine was viewed as being impossible.

An analogy might be drawn in mathematics. Euclidean geometry is not irrational just because of the work of Lobachevsky and others in the 19th Century. Nor did Lobachevsky "know better" than Euclid did in the area of geometry. He changed the rule that mathematical space had to have zero curvature, and followed the consequences of that change.

One could argue that the better analogy in mathematics might be Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica's being undermined by Goedel. I leave that question open.

All that being said, I do not believe that it is possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic alone since there is precisely this problem of uncertainty in the choice of allowable premises in logic, given that there seems to be no way to know which, if any, logical system should be given a privileged position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Al

The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.

Also, on a related train of thought, is there any logical reason to believe in a "spiritual realm?"

---

Yes, there is.

You make a good point and present it well. I can first of all say that when I converted from an atheist to a theist, I went through different stages; perhaps the first was pantheist, then I decided I was something between pantheist and atheist, then I decided the labels didn't matter-- any of the four biggest ones; pantheist, atheist, deist, or theist, and now I say I am a theist because it is my philosophy. As I went on this path, there were lots of different sources for ideas that I drew from; Pascal, Descartes, Dostoevsky, Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, Buddhist masters and poets, and then people such as Sri Aurobindo.

I read someone else on here mention that a religious person might live a calmer, more peaceful life because of their faith, and this is closely related to an idea or belief I have; value in a peaceful searching for inner or spiritual truth or wisdom. When we work on our meditation to awaken physical and mental health or truth consciousness, or awaken awareness, and work on our inner tranquility, peace and faith, this is vital to perceiving the issues, and as we develop we also inrease our tools for understanding. Meditation is not simply concentration on the void, but it can also be practicing mantras, sort of practice for aware or awakend consciousness.

Your question as to the reason to search for a spiritual realm-- I've read desscriptions that might shed light; all our mental speculation and philosophy is good, but it can only go so far. For every mental evaluation there is its opposite, in the mental realm you can only have mental will, which is not as valuable as a deeper, spiritual will. Two examples on this; both involve a greater focus, a complete absorption in either 1) something like the Buddhist's "one-pointed" concentration, and 2) the Hindu and Christian meditation, where meditation is also one-pointed, but focused on God.

Lastly, the greatest of the thinkers for humankind have contributed to philosophy, in greater or lesser degrees, and in different capacities. Not all of them agree on labels, but a great many, some that I have mentioned, put forward faith-based or religious ideas. Not only Dawkins is to be admired.

So I don't mean to say that one should take it on faith and stop thinking. We should always think critically, solving problems is very important for consciousness; but also take in the value of faith-oriented art, philosophy, things of this nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

---

I just posted there, just as a place to jump in. I know you didn't say they were in conflict.

I can honestly admit that a great reason I am interested in spiritual matters and God is great authors, philosohpers, poets, aritsts, etc., have sparked my interest with their own contributions to philosophical trends. I take some inspiriation from well-known sources, and sources who are known for other things but passed over on their ideas about God, for instance perhaps, Dostoevsky.

I am not under the opinion that people before any certain date were not capable of contributing something that was centuries before their time. At the same time, I realize that there are always new ideas; any person with a good brain who reads the same authors I have, will undoubtedly have great thoughts passing them by, that they might not write down, but which capture the issue perfectly or very well.

Everyone has to study the issues from their own angle. One of the reasons for stating the importance of the quest, and the desire that it does not denegrate into anything less than philosophy, is that philosophy affects everything in our lives to some degree. One of the reasons for desiring to aim true is that we are here on a long path-- if we miss slightly in our original aim, over a long distance our distance from the "true" path increases as our progress increases, if this makes any sense. I can give an example or analogy if necessary.

I hope all this is somewhat within topic. Hope no one takes exception, too. Thank you for discussing these things, everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

It has been a long day since I struggled with logic, but if I understand you correctly, the simple construct of a proper syllogism proves nothing, except that the person who created the syllogism is a successful user of logic.

I am not sure what you're getting at. In my Intro to Philosophy, there is an argument for God which goes:

If I can think of X, then X is possible and can exist.

So what? Logic is an attempt to make language function as a mathematical construct, and you can create all kinds of paradoxes, like Zeno's paradox of motion, which seemingly contains true contradictions.

It is a game which in no way advances Theism as an epistemological reality.

Belief and argument are not the same thing.

---

Nowhere I talked about what makes truth or not, just pointing what is rather obivous and pointed here, how logic or reason can be used by deists argumentation and assuming an atheist is less ignorant than a deist just because lack or presence of faith is rather misleading.

JBI:

I was thinking of Francis. It is funny to think that he wrote about
the subject and he clearly not related it to ignorance. Voltaire also have one of his short stories dealing with the matter and also his positiong have little to do with Dawkins and his crusaders.

A citation for Bloom, please? Anyone?

I am always intrigued by the eagerness of atheists to step right up and define what Christianity is. It always seems to me to have at least a tinge of shaping up a nice straw man to have a swat at.
I could define atheist also, my way, but I'll forebear since I expect people here would shout 'foul!'
BTW 'metastasize' is such an endearing nice colorful warm fuzzy choice of word. My compliments!

That should hold me for a while.

Atheism is a kind of infatuation and nothing else than that in point of fact if we delve into or go deeply to analyze it. It is a kind of opposition or reaction. It is a sheer antagonisms or aversion to theology.

It is an aftereffect and the idea of atheism was born out of aversive attitude to all those who relay on theological notions about the universe and the creator if it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

A citation for Bloom, please? Anyone?

---

I provided the url from which I took the text to quote. It's there Walter.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I provided the url from which I took the text to quote. It's there Walter.;)

---

Many thanks for the help.

Yup, found it 24 posts back.

However, I am one of the unwashed without access to the site. So I'll struggle along.

But thanks.

PS If the contention is simply that Christianity today is different from in Reformation times, I'm astounded and can only respond by saying "Duh."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

one thing I'd like to post about, following Dawkins, is why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers, especially those of us who are non-believers in purportedly liberal societies.

---

From my own experience it’s usually because it is ingrained in us from such a young age that we should show unquestionable respect, not necessarily just to people who are religious but in many generalised fashions, such as “respecting your elders”, etc.
I find this laughable even when I was a kid because from observing the way elders acted and spoke to each other I found many behaved far worse than children. A process of inquiry to the status quo inevitably arose not long after incidences like that. lol.

What was my personal experience in such matters with the pious? I was pretty much brought up in a weak-christian household where religion wasn’t really a major issue. The whole neighbourhood was like this to a more or lesser degree, so much so that having fisticuffs with anyone was really much of a rarity. It’s only now in (British) society that I am seeing a more apologetic stance being made now that a multi-cultural society is almost thrown on us that those in power seem to be causing all sorts of idiotic policies to avoid offending anyone of a religious background who has only recently settled here in the UK. This grates me no end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

those of us who are mature non-believers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

especially those of us who are non-believers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Hence, I think we non-believers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

If someone is a believer-- really, really believes-- then God is the most important thing in the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I am an atheist / I hold nothing against believers

---

---

---

---

---

---

I don’t usually refer to myself as an atheist, but for the purposes of this thread I will do so. As an atheist I have many beliefs – I believe that humanity will always struggle and in this struggle we define not only ourselves but better ways of living in co-habitation with each other even when up against insurmountable odds, such as extremely evil aggressive political regimes that exist to exterminate, annihilate and destroy. I believe that if problems start with politics then politics, by definition, will also solve these problems. I believe in wisdom, especially the wisdom that does not get grounded into tenets or become dogmatic and not allow free thought in order for said wisdom to be debated for it to change through the ages.
I believe in science and due process of the courts to uphold fair justice. I believe in freedom, education, and the freedom of free, consented sexuality.

I believe in many things. However, none of them are religious in nature.

To say as an atheist that I (or anyone else who is also an atheist) am a “non-believer” is to unfairly and unjustifiably place a grounded, theo-centric worldview on people. It’s like calling a woman a “non-man” or “non-male”. It’s a negative that looks at what a person isn’t as opposed to what a person is.
I don’t subscribe to the political belief of communism, so I don’t call myself an acommunist.

So what do I call myself? Well, a very handsome, charming man actually. lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

To say that believing in a higher power is irrational thing is illogical IMO. Something/someone is running the place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

Because a house does not build itself, because a car does not run its parts down the assembly line and put itself together.
This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

---

---

The only thing I see running the show is anything but divine. Everything observable looks very much like it would if there were no divine hand present. (Unless we start getting involved in the religious back-peddling of “god created everything so it would look like it created itself”…or something to that effect.)

Quote:

---

This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

I understand this line of reasoning. Since there is creation, there must be a Creator. But the question then becomes... who created the creator?

---

---

Formation is not creation.

Where exactly is any evidence of any kind to show that anything that exists was created instead of being formed? Because all I see is formation. Were you created in a single step? Or were you formed from very simply beginnings and are thus still forming today as an adult that never stops forming until mortal death?

I see nothing within nature that could’ve been created. Mechanical human-made instruments and gadgets, etc. are designed and created by a human craftsman. I have yet to see anything of the natural world that has been “created,” certainly anything created by divine guidance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

I think we have a working proof here that atheists have good strong voices, even in the presence of Christians.

---

How incredibly patronizing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

If god old Thomas or Agostine are around they would proof without proof that god exist and those atheists would just be lost.

---

So what were Thomas or Agostine waiting for? They had their whole lifetime to do just that but obviously haven’t “proven without proof” the existence of god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

I am always intrigued by the eagerness of atheists to step right up and define what Christianity is. It always seems to me to have at least a tinge of shaping up a nice straw man to have a swat at.

---

I am utterly fascinated and amused by Christians who like to define atheists. It usually starts with “f-cking” and ends with “morons”.
When it comes to intolerant tones and the use of fallacious strawmen, I think christians have it hands down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Atheism is a kind of infatuation and nothing else than that in point of fact if we delve into or go deeply to analyze it. It is a kind of opposition or reaction. It is a sheer antagonisms or aversion to theology.

It is an aftereffect and the idea of atheism was born out of aversive attitude to all those who relay on theological notions about the universe and the creator if it.

---

Yawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

How incredibly patronizing.

---

Read the thread Mr. Superior! Or should I say the ****ing thread, since that is the kind of language you use.?
This is a thread that was started specifically for atheists to speak about ways in which they felt repressed from expressing themselves in the overwhelming presence of Christians in a liberal society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

I am utterly fascinated and amused by Christians who like to define atheists. It usually starts with “f-cking” and ends with “morons”.

---

And I think you will find absolutely none of that here from any Christian or non-Christian in sight. You are the only one behaving like a moron as far as I can see. Go shove it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Read the thread Mr. Superior! Or should I say the ****ing thread, since that is the kind of language you use.?

---

Maybe you need to re-read my response as I was using the kind of language that I have seen christians do when referring to others not of their clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

This is a thread that was started specifically for atheists to speak about ways in which they felt repressed from expressing themselves in the overwhelming presence of Christians in a liberal society.

---

Ya, I know. And I was giving one of my experiences. You don't have a problem with that do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

And I think you will find absolutely none of that here from any Christian or non-Christian in sight.

---

Well praise the good lord! My faith has been restored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

You are the only one behaving like a moron as far as I can see. Go shove it!

---

Touched a nerve did I? I'm sure I'll lose sleep over it.

I regret having started the thread, because I wanted to do some thinking out loud towards writing some things and penetrating certain markets, and doubt I'll be able to without getting zapped for pushing the envelope, so I'll forget about it.

Hisnibs, I am not a moderator, don't want to be either, but there is no need to use inflammatory language to antagonize other members. From what I understand, personalized language leads to the thread being closed--which at this point I don't mind. I was really looking for good objective takes, observations, not about whether a deity is or isn't, but what we can say about religion in the modern era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Hisnibs, I am not a moderator, don't want to be either, but there is no need to use inflammatory language to antagonize other members.

---

Walter misinterpreted the use of my words, and that's because he chose to. Such is the nature of those with a persecution complex.

If no one minds me chiming in, and turning the discussion somewhat toward literature,

I find it puzzling, and interesting, that people find it necessary to write books stating the case for atheism. I would think that such a book would either not have an audience at all, or would be preaching to the choir (to malaprop an idiom [yes, I know]). Those who believe won't read the book (unless to find out what the opposition is thinking); those who doubt shouldn't read the book, because such a decision is personal; and those who don't believe don't need a book to reinforce their non-belief.

But, there the books are, and they are selling, so wth do I know, huh?

(edit) And I apologize in advance to hisnibs (cribbage term?) for defining the factions in degrees of belief; it is easier, and I believe somewhat customary (at least at this time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

Maybe you need to re-read my response as I was using the kind of language that I have seen christians do when referring to others not of their clan.

---

There was no foul language on this thread till you entered, so perhaps you should think about your "clan".

Quote:

---

The only thing I see running the show is anything but divine. Everything observable looks very much like it would if there were no divine hand present. (Unless we start getting involved in the religious back-peddling of “god created everything so it would look like it created itself”…or something to that effect.)

---

So the world, universe, IOW animal, mineral, vegetable etc created themselves?

Oh, and while I'm here, I'd like to comment on the persons that type God out "g_d", the same poster spoke of pretentiousness of others, just like to mention that IMO that is the height of same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

To say as an atheist that I (or anyone else who is also an atheist) am a “non-believer” is to unfairly and unjustifiably place a grounded, theo-centric worldview on people. It’s like calling a woman a “non-man” or “non-male”. It’s a negative that looks at what a person isn’t as opposed to what a person is.
I don’t subscribe to the political belief of communism, so I don’t call myself an acommunist.

---

You are actually right, but in sort of different way... "Non-believer" is not exactly the best term, but neither is "atheist", if you want to be precise.

There is a difference between the following:
1) I do not believe there is G-d.
2) I believe there is no G-d.

The former sentence is simpler than the latter since it is simply negatively correlated to that which it speaks of; the latter one is a positive statement and assumes a kind of belief, even though that belief is expressed negatively ("believe there is no" as opposed to "believe there is"). Technically, we call both positions to be "a-theist" ones without making an important distinction between them.

Technically, the position 1) is non-believer and atheist - it defines itself as negation of believer, and negating G-d makes it atheist. The position 2) is believer and atheist - it defines its position of negating G-d, which makes it atheist, by belief in the lack of G-d.

That being said, most of self-proclaimed atheists I have personally met are actually agnostics, but fail to differentiate the two.
Atheism, especially in its militant forms, is way more often a reactionist ideology (in lack of better term), which is based on "evident truth" that there is no G-d, the argumentation of which is, in most cases, not much better than the theist pseudo-argumentation (now some of you are going to tell me that it is impossible to argumentate the existence of G-d, and I will say, "Bravo! You finally get what I was saying in my previous posts which some people eisegised!" :lol:). Most of atheists take agnostic position, and out of the "lack of possibility to logically conclude whether there is G-d and verify His existence or lack thereof", which is an agnostic position, jump to deus ex machina 'conclusion' that, thus, there is no G-d, question resolved. :D So atheist in the principle denies the existence of G-d as transcendent and immanently necessary being, but cannot 'argumentate' such position any more than theist can argumentate his or her theism.

If you put things this way, atheism is as irrational as theism - the position "there is no G-d" which assumes "provability" and "argumentability" of itself would be rational, but just as I have never found a 'proof' of G-d's existence which was not logical fallacy or manipulation which may technically be not fallacious but still not a proof due to flawed premises or alike (you know, supposing linearity based on characteristics of that which you are only about to prove, and such), I have never found a proof there is no G-d. ;)

Whatever, not that I care. :D

PS to anyone: LitNet doesn't have Thomas Aquinas as a searchable text? Is that in the works? Time to Google.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

Oh, and while I'm here, I'd like to comment on the persons that type God out "g_d", the same poster spoke of pretentiousness of others, just like to mention that IMO that is the height of same.

---

And you are entirely right. (I knew we would agree. :))

Atheism is a pretentious position, just as theism. Only agnosticism is, strictly speaking, neutral. Which is why I hurried to remove the "logic-approach" when I spotted it in your post (it was nothing personal) from the argument in general, because it favours none and leads nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

And you are entirely right. (I knew we would agree. :))

Atheism is a pretentious position, just as theism. Only agnosticism is, strictly speaking, neutral. Which is why I hurried to remove the "logic-approach" when I spotted it in your post (it was nothing personal) from the argument in general, because it favours none and leads nowhere.

---

I dunno about that. You kind of believe what you believe, don't you? If I look around and don't believe in god, and you look around and you do, and another person looks around and can't decide, how is any position more or less pretentious than another? I don't think that word really applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

Maybe you need to re-read my response as I was using the kind of language that I have seen christians do when referring to others not of their clan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

There was no foul language on this thread till you entered, so perhaps you should think about your "clan".

---

---

Why are people not getting this? How are you not seeing me quoting the derogative terms that people use when referring to atheists?

Quote:

---

The only thing I see running the show is anything but divine. Everything observable looks very much like it would if there were no divine hand present. (Unless we start getting involved in the religious back-peddling of “god created everything so it would look like it created itself”…or something to that effect.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

So the world, universe, IOW animal, mineral, vegetable etc created themselves?

---

---

No. I didn’t say that. Of all the observable, what can be seen is formation by way of some form of evolution. There’s nothing to suggest that anything is created by anything other than the forces of nature.
Planets don’t suddenly just jump into existence anymore than complex organisms (animals, humans, etc.). They form over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

To say as an atheist that I (or anyone else who is also an atheist) am a “non-believer” is to unfairly and unjustifiably place a grounded, theo-centric worldview on people. It’s like calling a woman a “non-man” or “non-male”. It’s a negative that looks at what a person isn’t as opposed to what a person is.
I don’t subscribe to the political belief of communism, so I don’t call myself an acommunist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

You are actually right, but in sort of different way... "Non-believer" is not exactly the best term, but neither is "atheist", if you want to be precise.

There is a difference between the following:
1) I do not believe there is G-d.
2) I believe there is no G-d.

The former sentence is simpler than the latter since it is simply negatively correlated to that which it speaks of; the latter one is a positive statement and assumes a kind of belief, even though that belief is expressed negatively ("believe there is no" as opposed to "believe there is"). Technically, we call both positions to be "a-theist" ones without making an important distinction between them.

Technically, the position 1) is non-believer and atheist - it defines itself as negation of believer, and negating G-d makes it atheist. The position 2) is believer and atheist - it defines its position of negating G-d, which makes it atheist, by belief in the lack of G-d.

That being said, most of self-proclaimed atheists I have personally met are actually agnostics, but fail to differentiate the two.
Atheism, especially in its militant forms, is way more often a reactionist ideology (in lack of better term), which is based on "evident truth" that there is no G-d, the argumentation of which is, in most cases, not much better than the theist pseudo-argumentation (now some of you are going to tell me that it is impossible to argumentate the existence of G-d, and I will say, "Bravo! You finally get what I was saying in my previous posts which some people eisegised!" ). Most of atheists take agnostic position, and out of the "lack of possibility to logically conclude whether there is G-d and verify His existence or lack thereof", which is an agnostic position, jump to deus ex machina 'conclusion' that, thus, there is no G-d, question resolved. So atheist in the principle denies the existence of G-d as transcendent and immanently necessary being, but cannot 'argumentate' such position any more than theist can argumentate his or her theism.

If you put things this way, atheism is as irrational as theism - the position "there is no G-d" which assumes "provability" and "argumentability" of itself would be rational, but just as I have never found a 'proof' of G-d's existence which was not logical fallacy or manipulation which may technically be not fallacious but still not a proof due to flawed premises or alike (you know, supposing linearity based on characteristics of that which you are only about to prove, and such), I have never found a proof there is no G-d.

Whatever, not that I care.

---

---

I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s folly (and quite unfair) to label someone something because they’re different and it’s different for someone to apply this label because of that. I can understand a lot of people who may have been raised into a theological worldview and have difficulty in comprehending the worldview of people who do not have a religion altogether.
I’ve got no problem with that really as I understand (especially having come from and de-converting from a religion that provided a metaphorical "bubble").

As I no longer follow any religion, I don't label myself in anyway in religious terms.

Following on my post #68, I don't understand the need for a topic to discuss what someone doesn't believe in. If there is some history here that I, as a new member, am unaware of I apologize.

edit; ah, screw it. there's a decent argument going on, sorry to fall into the middle of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

I dunno about that. You kind of believe what you believe, don't you? If I look around and don't believe in god, and you look around and you do, and another person looks around and can't decide, how is any position more or less pretentious than another? I don't think that word really applies.

---

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I was thinking about "pretensious" in sense of pretensions to have the monopoly over truth enough to make definite statemes such as "G-d is" or "G-d is not" as utter truth and being militant or prozelytizing about it (those were the ones I had in mind, primarily), despite understanding that you cannot argumentate any of them other than, in the case of the former, "The Scripture says so and I take Scripture as my source of fundamental truths I hold", or, in the case of the latter, "I simply do not think there is G-d, as I cannot find evidence for it or reach that conclusion by pure logic, so I will say that there is no G-d", both of which is a pseudo-argumentation.

That being said, and I want to bold this: I sincerely respect all three of the positions and do not think, in the terms of 'value', that any position is "better" than the other; and given how hard the question is, without the actual answer, I think one should appreciate the choice and the process of coming to that choice of any person who seriously considered it, regardless of the position they reached.

I am just sheding a different light on some possible implications from open and militant claiming that one is, for example, "rational atheist without belief in G-d", because that wording is a nonsense. Atheism is not at all a rational position, and to say that atheism lacks belief is equally nonsensous - atheism defines itself as belief in negation of certain thing, and even though defined negatively, it does define itself in respect of the question whether there is G-d. Unlike agnosticism.

The terms are a mess in everyday life use, so I say "believer" and "theist" as synonims as well and leave "atheist" as "non-believer", even though this is technically incorrect. Only agnostic is, if we are nitpicking terminology, truly a non-believer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

Following on my post #68, I don't understand the need for a topic to discuss what someone doesn't believe in. If there is some history here that I, as a new member, am unaware of I apologize.

edit; ah, screw it. there's a decent argument going on, sorry to fall into the middle of it.

---

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way. Religion is a faith in dictated prescription, and I don't really like any of them, although, following Joyce, I think Catholicism and Judaism have two of the most rational approaches to faith and belief in deism. Other sect doctrines are bad for my blood pressure.

I found Aquinas here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aquinas.htm

PS: Welcome to LN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s folly (and quite unfair) to label someone something because they’re different and it’s different for someone to apply this label because of that. I can understand a lot of people who may have been raised into a theological worldview and have difficulty in comprehending the worldview of people who do not have a religion altogether.
I’ve got no problem with that really as I understand (especially having come from and de-converting from a religion that provided a metaphorical "bubble").

As I no longer follow any religion, I don't label myself in anyway in religious terms.

---

I understand that, perhaps I should have cleared that I was not replying directly to you, but merely used your post as "starting point" because you opened an important question, though you opened it with originally different intentions. :)

I think I understand what you are saying about labelling, and I actually agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Atheism is not a religion mosca, but it is as equally a faith as Mormonism, but unlike the latter, it is a faith in stuff, in matter, in the material object, the wave or particle acting a certain way.

---

I disagree with making atheism synonimous with naturalism here.
There are some religions or, better, life philosophies, mainly Eastern, which are atheist in their nature, yet not fully materialist by their ontological position or naturalist. Even though atheism and naturalism are often put together, please note that, strictly speaking, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Possibly, English is my fourth language so I tend to watch my expressions a lot, but I still slip something which does not really suit the context. ;) If you know of a better expression, let me know.

I was thinking about "pretensious" in sense of pretensions to have the monopoly over truth enough to make definite statemes such as "G-d is" or "G-d is not" as utter truth and being militant or prozelytizing about it (those were the ones I had in mind, primarily), despite understanding that you cannot argumentate any of them other than, in the case of the former, "The Scripture says so and I take Scripture as my source of fundamental truths I hold", or, in the case of the latter, "I simply do not think there is G-d, as I cannot find evidence for it or reach that conclusion by pure logic, so I will say that there is no G-d", both of which is a pseudo-argumentation.

That being said, and I want to bold this: I sincerely respect all three of the positions and do not think, in the terms of 'value', that any position is "better" than the other; and given how hard the question is, without the actual answer, I think one should appreciate the choice and the process of coming to that choice of any person who seriously considered it, regardless of the position they reached.

I am just sheding a different light on some possible implications from open and militant claiming that one is, for example, "rational atheist without belief in G-d", because that wording is a nonsense. Atheism is not at all a rational position, and to say that atheism lacks belief is equally nonsensous - atheism defines itself as belief in negation of certain thing, and even though defined negatively, it does define itself in respect of the question whether there is G-d. Unlike agnosticism.

The terms are a mess in everyday life use, so I say "believer" and "theist" as synonims as well and leave "atheist" as "non-believer", even though this is technically incorrect. Only agnostic is, if we are nitpicking terminology, truly a non-believer.

---

Frankly, although the logic behind your analysis of the terms is sound and consistent, I can't really agree with it, as it (or at least so it seems to me) differs from the common understanding of the words atheist and agnostic. Majority of people who call themselves atheists and who are described as such, do not take the position of asserting God's non-existence. Instead of this "strong atheism", which we apparently agree make little sense, most do no more than withold assent to the proposition "There is a god" (which I like to call "weak atheism"). And indeed for withholding assent there is no need for faith. Isn't this definiton more in line with the way words theist and atheists are commonly understood? I think so, because defining atheism as affirming the statement "There is no God" leaves us with very few atheists and a whole lot of agnostics who like to be identified as atheists.

Being just a matter of semantics, it's all probably of little importance, but still I think it's reasonable to keep our definitons as close to the common meaning as possible. That's just my two cents:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aabbcc

I disagree with making atheism synonimous with naturalism here.
There are some religions or, better, life philosophies, mainly Eastern, which are atheist in their nature, yet not fully materialist by their ontological position or naturalist. Even though atheism and naturalism are often put together, please note that, strictly speaking, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

---

Perhaps we face the danger of too many isms, as I am not sure physics is naturalism.

About your post on the range between agnosticism and atheism, this is an interesting subject, as agnostics and atheists generally don't get along with each other, which at first glance seem surprising. People generally blur the line between the two without some study, but I am now firmly in the latter camp, and am nearly as hard an atheist as Dawkins. He rates himself as 7.5 for "no God exists."

I am about 7.

American Atheist has an interesting archive article which claims agnosticism can lead the way to hard atheism, but I am doubtful. Margaret Atwood is an agnostic. I've heard her talk about it--and the furtherest she seems willing to go is a succinct discomfort with "this fascination with Jesus Christ."

The main reason atheists don't get along with their weaker skeptics on the scale, is that agnostics are still willing to explore the possibility of supernatural existence, sometimes still searching.

I've stopped searching, and all I care to do, as a writer, is to say things about the human condition.