The Atheist Corner

[Jozanny]

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.

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

Nonsense. You go girl

[Walter]

Lying low.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[JBI]

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.

[Virgil]

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.

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.

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?

[Jozanny]

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[JBI]

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

[dzebra]

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.

[Jozanny]

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.

[RichardHresko]

I think I'm in love.



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.

[NikolaiI]

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.

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[Walter]

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.

[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.