Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 2:01 am**

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 1:35 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 4:45 pm My point was that neither the atheist nor the theist understands the other, except in a superficial way, such as you mentioned.
I don't think it has to be superficial. People tend to have ups and downs with their beliefs and believing and gaps - iow times when they do not believe or have strong doubt, or simply find themselves without the belief, especially in modern life where we are exposed to both theism and atheism, most of us, from early on. In the US say, most people will have met and experienced through media people with different beliefs or lacking the same beliefs or openly skeptical of same. And these will be there waiting for those moments when the theist in crisis or just staring at an industrial park, suddenly feels there is no God. So, these moments - minor dark night's of the soul or simply flowing into not believing . can provide a basis for understanding others.

Most people don't want to notice anomalies. And most people speak as if belief is a binary affair. I believe, period. There are no degrees or gaps. But there are.

Ontologically speaking, I think negative facts do exist. I walk into a restaurant and I see that my friend Keshab is not there. I look in my wallet and I see that I have no money. I ask my friend a question and I see that he has no answer. We can be directly aware of the absence or non-existence of something. I contend that an atheist looks about his world and sees no god. He directly sees the non-existence of God. He has direct acquaintance of that negative fact. I think to really understand an atheist one must experience the same absence or non-existence.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 2:25 am**

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 2:01 am Ontologically speaking, I think negative facts do exist. I walk into a restaurant and I see that my friend Keshab is not there. I look in my wallet and I see that I have no money. I ask my friend a question and I see that he has no answer. We can be directly aware of the absence or non-existence of something. I contend that an atheist looks about his world and sees no god. He directly sees the non-existence of God. He has direct acquaintance of that negative fact. I think to really understand an atheist one must experience the same absence or non-existence.

Which for me can happen, say, when I walk through a couple of miles of industrial areas. And I think one can deaden an area. I'm a pantheist, amongst other things, but, man, you can mistreat parts of the world to such a degree that god/psyche is pretty dead there.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 3:11 am**

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 2:25 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 2:01 am Ontologically speaking, I think negative facts do exist. I walk into a restaurant and I see that my friend Keshab is not there. I look in my wallet and I see that I have no money. I ask my friend a question and I see that he has no answer. We can be directly aware of the absence or non-existence of something. I contend that an atheist looks about his world and sees no god. He directly sees the non-existence of God. He has direct acquaintance of that negative fact. I think to really understand an atheist one must experience the same absence or non-existence.
Which for me can happen, say, when I walk through a couple of miles of industrial areas. And I think one can deaden an area. I'm a pantheist, amongst other things, but, man, you can mistreat parts of the world to such a degree that god/psyche is pretty dead there.

That just shows how different people are. I love those old industrial areas and that is where I might have the strongest feeling of the presence of God. Nature areas for me don't mean much. Especially since I have allergies to pollen. I have the same taste in industrial electronic music. This isn't really industrial but I like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX-OgVd2kio

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 4:14 am**

Consul wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 11:54 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 7:53 amAbout atheism, there is nothing to understand. Like most theists you seem to think that atheism is some sort of belief system, when, of course it is nothing of the kind.
It is simply a negation of a belief system; not one but a series of connected and disconnected belief systems, all of which fail to amount to a serious set of claims.
Just begs the question; which or what gods am I supposed to not believe in today.
All your examples conform to the simple facts that I already laid out.

"Atheism" can mean "negative atheism" or "nontheism" ("the nonbelief in the existence of God or gods"), and it can mean "positive atheism" or "antitheism" ("the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods"). (Note that I use "antitheism" in the purely theoretical, metaphysical sense, i.e. without any practical, political implications.)

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 4:16 am**

Consul wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 12:32 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 12:21 amSo, without quoting authority figures, Consul, what do you yourself believe? I much prefer to read your words, rather than someone else's.
I'm a positive atheist/antitheist.

So you are a BELIEVER too. Any dumb theist can figure you out.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 4:18 am**

Consul wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 11:54 pm

"Atheism" can mean "negative atheism" or "nontheism" ("the nonbelief in the existence of God or gods"), and it can mean "positive atheism" or "antitheism" ("the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods"). (Note that I use "antitheism" in the purely theoretical, metaphysical sense, i.e. without any practical, political implications.)

Just begs the question; which or what gods am I supposed to not believe in today.
All your examples conform to the simple definitive facts that I already laid out.

With so-called positive atheism you are just adding another quality; namely anti-theism.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 5:09 am**

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 4:18 am
Consul wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 11:54 pm

"Atheism" can mean "negative atheism" or "nontheism" ("the nonbelief in the existence of God or gods"), and it can mean "positive atheism" or "antitheism" ("the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods"). (Note that I use "antitheism" in the purely theoretical, metaphysical sense, i.e. without any practical, political implications.)

Just begs the question; which or what gods am I supposed to not believe in today.
All your examples conform to the simple definitive facts that I already laid out.

With so-called positive atheism you are just adding another quality; namely anti-theism.

Here's a list of gods you are supposed to not believe in today, courtesy of William Burroughs.

“This book is dedicated to the Ancient Ones, to the Lord of Abominations, Humwawa, whose face is a mass of entrails, whose breath is the stench of dung and the perfume of death, Dark Angel of all that is excreted and sours, Lord of Decay, Lord of the Future, who rides on a whispering south wind, to Pazuzu, Lord of Fevers and Plagues, Dark Angel of the Four Winds with rotting genitals from which he howls through sharpened teeth over stricken cities, to Kutulu, the Sleeping Serpent who cannot be summoned, to the Akhkharu, who such the blood of men since they desire to become men, to the Lalussu, who haunt the places of men, to Gelal and Lilit, who invade the beds of men and whose children are born in secret places, to Addu, raiser of storms who can fill the night sky with brightness, to Malah, Lord of Courage and Bravery, to Zahgurim, whose number is twenty-three and who kills in an unnatural fashion, to Zahrim, a warrior among warriors, to Itzamna, Spirit of Early Mists and Showers, to Ix Chel, the Spider-Web-that-Catches-the-Dew-of-Morning, to Zuhuy Kak, Virgin Fire, to Ah Dziz, the Master of Cold, to Kak U Pacat, who works in fire, to Ix Tab, Goddess of Ropes and Snares, patroness of those who hang themselves, to Schmuun, the Silent One, twin brother of Ix Tab, to Xolotl the Unformed, Lord of Rebirth, to Aguchi, Master of Ejaculations, to Osiris and Amen in phallic form, to Hex Chun Chan, the Dangerous One, to Ah Pook, the Destroyer, to the Great Old One and the Star Beast, to Pan, God of Panic, to the nameless gods of dispersal and emptiness, to Hassan i Sabbah, Master of Assassins.

To all the scribes and artists and practitioners of magic through whom these spirits have been manifested….
NOTHING IS TRUE. EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.”

― William S. Burroughs, Cities of the Red Night

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 5:24 am**

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 8:11 am I’m the OP, the guy that first asked the question. I would answer it by saying that I think a theist cannot understand, really understand, atheism. Let me give you something analogous. Can a heterosexual, who has never experienced sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, understand homosexuality? And vice versa, can a homosexual, who has never experienced sexual attraction to the opposite sex, understand heterosexuality? In both cases I say No. For me to understand something is to have direct acquaintance with that something. I understand color because I have experienced color. I understand how someone could like disco music because I like it. I do not understand how someone could like harsh metallic music. I also don’t understand how someone could like folk music or spicy hot food or bungee jumping. Most theists have never directly experienced the absence of God. They simply don’t know what it feels like. Therefore I say that they don’t understand it. Likewise, most atheists have never experienced the presence of God. And therefore they don’t understand it.

If you do not share my idea that to understand something is to experience that something directly, then you may disagree with me. I have an extreme empiricism. I also believe that one can directly experience the absence of something.

I am of the opinion that one can abstract from experience and understand another's a priori without having ever experienced it a posteriori. A heterosexual man may abstract from the warm attraction he feels at the sight of the opposite sex and is left with that feeling of attraction, an abstraction which can be made identically by a homosexual man. This second man can abstract from his attraction and find that, if he were to imagine that feeling arising as a result of seeing the opposite sex, he would understand homosexuality. However, this is an uncommon practice, as most seem not to have much experience with logical reasoning. It must also be stated that empiricism without abstraction can only grant one self-knowledge, a belief that does not contradict any others one may have. If one is to abstract from the concept of running track and of walking to the corner store and back, they will have the concept of a mile. They can then use this concept to compare distances between objects and come to conclusions as a result of it. If one were to possess an exceptional ability to remember, one might compare the distance to the corner store and back to everyday life. However, only those who had been to the store and back from a residence near the one who compares distances in order to understand the distance. Plus, if that one had been running quickly or perhaps driving to that store, they would have an entirely different experience in mind. Therefore, one must abstract to the mile in order for empiricism, or gathering information through experience, to be useful.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 6:39 am**

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 7:53 am [Atheism] is simply a negation of a belief system; not one but a series of connected and disconnected belief systems, all of which fail to amount to a serious set of claims. What we have is a decent respect for reason and evidence, which all theistic systems fail to meet.

Hmmm. The Argument from ignorance logical fallacy says, in familiar and informal terms, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If atheists respect reason and evidence, shouldn't they discard their atheism in favour of the only position that does respect reason and evidence: agnosticism. I.e. there is insufficient (i.e. none) evidence to reach a reasonable and logical conclusion regarding the existence of God.

Theists and atheists (who assert the non-existence of God) are both drawing a conclusion that the evidence - none, remember?

- does not support. They are faith positions.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 6:56 am**

h_k_s wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 2:44 pm Atheists base their anti-theology on the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which means having neither proof nor absence of proof you/they ass-u-me one or the other. Either way these assumptions are a fallacy to logic and rationalism.

Ooops! I just said what you'd already said.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 1:38 pm**

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 6:56 am
h_k_s wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 2:44 pm Atheists base their anti-theology on the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which means having neither proof nor absence of proof you/they ass-u-me one or the other. Either way these assumptions are a fallacy to logic and rationalism.
Ooops! I just said what you'd already said. :oops:

Glad we agree.

I love it when people agree. Means I have met yet another smart, rational, logical, philosophical friend to cherish, just like Aristotle said.

:D

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 2:40 pm**

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 8:48 pm
h_k_s wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 7:08 pm

I have a simpler explanation of these terms, FYI in case you are interested.

Theist -- believes in a God or Gods and believes that God or Gods is/are watching over him/her.

Deist -- believes in a God or Gods and believes that God or Gods is/are distant and not watching over him/her and that instead he/she is on their own.

Agnostic -- believes it is not possible to know if there is a God or no god.

Atheist -- believes there is no God.

Each of these is a belief system. So each of these believes in something.

I normally believe that I will have another drink.

:D
I’m not much into definitions. That is pretty much a rationalist’s game and I am definitely not a rationalist. As I mentioned, I am an extreme or radical empiricist.

I’m also gay, an in-your-face, come-and-get-it f*ggot. And that is my relation to God, so why would I want a distant God who doesn’t even know I am here waiting. To each his own I say. Yes, I am still a theist, according to your schoolmarmish “definitions”, I guess.

Then it would appear that the root of your atheism is contempt/hate for the religions that oppose/vilify "alternative sexual relationships" (there, that's a cleaner word than all those other nasty words are).

And as I said before, there is always some intense emotion at the root of all atheism, if not simply due to being raised that way in the first place (brainwashed) by atheist parents.

My own personal view of heterosexuality and non-heterosexuality is that all people should keep their sexual preferences and exploits to themselves, same as with politics, religion, race, abortion, anti-abortion, and all other such hot-button issues. This facilitates coexistence.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 3:06 pm**

h_k_s wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 2:40 pm
GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 8:48 pm

I’m not much into definitions. That is pretty much a rationalist’s game and I am definitely not a rationalist. As I mentioned, I am an extreme or radical empiricist.

I’m also gay, an in-your-face, come-and-get-it f*ggot. And that is my relation to God, so why would I want a distant God who doesn’t even know I am here waiting. To each his own I say. Yes, I am still a theist, according to your schoolmarmish “definitions”, I guess.
Then it would appear that the root of your atheism is contempt/hate for the religions that oppose/vilify "alternative sexual relationships" (there, that's a cleaner word than all those other nasty words are).

And as I said before, there is always some intense emotion at the root of all atheism, if not simply due to being raised that way in the first place (brainwashed) by atheist parents.

My own personal view of heterosexuality and non-heterosexuality is that all people should keep their sexual preferences and exploits to themselves, same as with politics, religion, race, abortion, anti-abortion, and all other such hot-button issues. This facilitates coexistence.

Whoa, that is the first time anyone has referred to my atheism, especially since I am NOT an atheist. I am a very strong THEIST. Anyone who has read through my postings on this forum must know that I am an in-your-face believer in God. My religion is very traditional Christianity, which I think is homosexual to the core, no matter how much the heterosexualists try to make it otherwise. Just look at the Catholic clergy and monastic life as it has existed through the millennia. Gay sex is shot all through it. (Buddhist monastic life is the same.)

Of course you think people should keep their sexual and religious and political hot-button issues to themselves. Don't ask, don't tell. But that ain't gonna happen in this world. Interruption is the very name of the game. Live with it. You really have no choice.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 3:11 pm**

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 3:06 pm
h_k_s wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 2:40 pm

Then it would appear that the root of your atheism is contempt/hate for the religions that oppose/vilify "alternative sexual relationships" (there, that's a cleaner word than all those other nasty words are).

And as I said before, there is always some intense emotion at the root of all atheism, if not simply due to being raised that way in the first place (brainwashed) by atheist parents.

My own personal view of heterosexuality and non-heterosexuality is that all people should keep their sexual preferences and exploits to themselves, same as with politics, religion, race, abortion, anti-abortion, and all other such hot-button issues. This facilitates coexistence.
Whoa, that is the first time anyone has referred to my atheism, especially since I am NOT an atheist. I am a very strong THEIST. Anyone who has read through my postings on this forum must know that I am an in-your-face believer in God. My religion is very traditional Christianity, which I think is homosexual to the core, no matter how much the heterosexualists try to make it otherwise. Just look at the Catholic clergy and monastic life as it has existed through the millennia. Gay sex is shot all through it. (Buddhist monastic life is the same.)

Of course you think people should keep their sexual and religious and political hot-button issues to themselves. Don't ask, don't tell. But that ain't gonna happen in this world. Interruption is the very name of the game. Live with it. You really have no choice.

Sorry … I must have misunderstood you.

Theism and non-heterosexuality do go together plainly enough. Catholic priests prove this every day. So do some of the nuns.

Posted: **September 30th, 2019, 3:13 pm**

GaryLouisSmith you are correct. There is a strong argument supporting the non-heterosexuality of Jesus. After all he did have an unusual affection towards St. John the younger brother of James/Jakob.

However, Moses and St. Paul were very anti non-heterosexual. So there is an inherent conflict within Christianity on that issues.

You are right. So I must agree with you.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?

Re: Do you think a theist can understand atheist?