Philosophy Discussion Forums

Spiral Out wrote:That is incorrect. Atheism is a non-participation in a religious belief system. Atheism literally means 'without theism', just as asymptomatic means 'without symptom'. Atheists simply don't participate in the belief system of theists. Therefore, atheism is not a positive knowledge claim.

Atheism is the belief, consciously understood and publicly stated or not, that human reason is qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of God claims. Ideological atheists are people who either don't understand their own belief system, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit what it is.

Watch what happens next. We will probably now see 6,983 pages of discussion which attempts to refute the above assertions. And all those attempts will fail, as they already have about 1,000 times. And then members will run to hide in some other thread, and continue typing the same "atheism is not a belief" baloney that they've been posting for years. And that process will be labeled "philosophy", "reason", rational skepticism" etc.

Guys, this is just Jehovah's Witness memorized bible chanting by another name.

Faith based beliefs are faith based beliefs are faith based beliefs.

Ormond wrote:Atheism is the belief, consciously understood and publicly stated or not, that human reason is qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of God claims. Ideological atheists are people who either don't understand their own belief system, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit what it is.

Are you speaking of atheists or anti-religion ideologues? These are very different people.

Gertie wrote:
I prefer to call myself an Atheist as a way of signifying that I don't accept the god claims I've come across. I think that's pretty common. On boards like this 'atheist' can carry the baggage of some assumptions about it being a positive knowledge claim ....

Atheism is a positive knowledge claim, that apparently no atheist can understand and certainly not admit to, because then they'd have to defend their claim, and the whole point of ideological atheism is to remain on the attack. As has been explained about 17,000 times already...

lol OK.

Watch what happens next. We will probably now see 6,983 pages of discussion which attempts to refute the above assertions. And all those attempts will fail, as they already have about 1,000 times. And then members will run to hide in some other thread, and continue typing the same "atheism is not a belief" baloney that they've been posting for years. And that process will be labeled "philosophy", "reason", rational skepticism" etc.

Ya nailed that one, Ormond!

Ormond:

Atheism is the belief, consciously understood and publicly stated or not, that human reason is qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of God claims. Ideological atheists are people who either don't understand their own belief system, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit what it is.

The problem is that you are restricting the meaning of a term to suit your argumentative aims. This is ironic given that your argument is based on the claim that such arguments are pointless. You are perpetuating the argument by misrepresenting the viewed expressed by others. The issue here is not theological but semantic, that is, what the term atheism means. The fact of the matter is that this term, like many terms, has more than one meaning. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage. Several of us have made clear that the way in which we use the term is not the same as the way in which you use it. Since both usages are standard, it is a matter of clarifying in what sense the term is being used. To insist that we mean something other than we mean because the term has another meaning is simply stubborn minded obfuscation.

I will speak for myself, but I think others may agree: my atheism is based on skepticism concerning the “very largest questions”. It is just the opposite of what you claim atheists believe. Since our ability to know is limited we cannot make any “God claims” based on knowledge and for that reason I am skeptical of such claims when others make them.

Faith based beliefs are faith based beliefs are faith based beliefs.

Without that faith there is no belief in those things based on faith, hence atheism. Not believing in a God is no more a “belief system” than not believing in Bigfoot or intelligent life on Mars is a belief system. They fall outside of what it is that I believe.

You are perpetuating the argument by misrepresenting the viewed expressed by others.

The problem is that those others don't understand their own views.

The issue here is not theological but semantic, that is, what the term atheism means.

In the dictionary it means: not a theist.

In the real world it means: a faith based believer in human reason.

Please observe how absolutely determined pretty much every forum atheist is in resisting this positive description of their perspective. This is a 100% purely emotional agenda. You desperately don't want to admit that atheism is based on faith in reason, because then you'd have to prove the qualifications of reason, which you already know you can't do. And so then instead of being intellectually honest like forum atheists are always demanding of theists, you dodge and weave and duck and cover and run and hide and anything else you can think of to keep the self flattering image of fantasy superiority alive. All you've accomplished is to replicate some of the lamest aspects of religion under a different colored flag.

Sorry to be so harsh, but for crying out loud, how many times does this have to be explained???

I will speak for myself, but I think others may agree: my atheism is based on skepticism concerning the “very largest questions”.

No, it's not based on that at all. You are completely utterly wrong, about your own relationship with your own perspective. Your skepticism is just a symptom of the underlying faith based belief that skepticism (ie. human reason) is relevant to such huge topics. Despite all your impressive learning, you've failed to understand the most obvious properties of your own perspective. In fairness to you and other forum members, this blind spot is also shared by many thought leaders on the subject.

Indeed, your irrationality is shared by this poster, who can't possibly be sane or he wouldn't keep writing on such topics. So I suggest an efficient solution to this entire debate.

Somebody shoot me!

Felix wrote:

Dclements: Yes, as Kierkegaard and others have mentioned, life is absurd

Kierkegaard was a Christiian, he didn't consider life to be absurd, although men can make it so (by being inauthentic).

Ok, then try to explain these few paragraphs on Wikipedia's page about absurdism or why they are incorrect:

Wikipedia wrote:
Absurdism shares some concepts, and a common theoretical template, with existentialism and nihilism. It has its origins in the work of the 19th-century Danish philosopher SOREN KIERKEGARD, who chose to confront the crisis that humans face with the Absurd by developing his own existentialist philosophy.[3] Absurdism as a belief system was born of the European existentialist movement that ensued, specifically when Camus rejected certain aspects of that philosophical line of thought[4] and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. The aftermath of World War II provided the social environment that stimulated absurdist views and allowed for their popular development, especially in the devastated country of France.

Wikipedia wrote:
In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should respond to it. The absurdist philosopher Albert Camus stated that individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning [/quote]


and

sparknotes: philosophy/sisyphus/section3 wrote:
Each one of them tries somehow to resolve the conflict between human reason and an irrational universe in one way or another. Jaspers, Chestov, and Kierkegaard, all in their own way, deny human reason and fully embrace an irrational universe, associating that with God.

..and if your up to it pages 64 on in Kierkegaard for beginners which a FREE copy can be found at

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgu ... inners.pdf

(which is the only book I've had enough time to read on Kierkegaard)

-- Updated January 1st, 2017, 4:30 pm to add the following --

Felix wrote:

Dclements: Yes, as Kierkegaard and others have mentioned, life is absurd

Kierkegaard was a Christiian, he didn't consider life to be absurd, although men can make it so (by being inauthentic).

Ok, then try to explain these few paragraphs on Wikipedia's page about absurdism or why they are incorrect:

Wikipedia wrote:
Absurdism shares some concepts, and a common theoretical template, with existentialism and nihilism. It has its origins in the work of the 19th-century Danish philosopher SOREN KIERKEGARD, who chose to confront the crisis that humans face with the Absurd by developing his own existentialist philosophy.[3] Absurdism as a belief system was born of the European existentialist movement that ensued, specifically when Camus rejected certain aspects of that philosophical line of thought[4] and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. The aftermath of World War II provided the social environment that stimulated absurdist views and allowed for their popular development, especially in the devastated country of France.

Wikipedia wrote:
In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should respond to it. The absurdist philosopher Albert Camus stated that individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning [/quote]


and

sparknotes: philosophy/sisyphus/section3 wrote:
Each one of them tries somehow to resolve the conflict between human reason and an irrational universe in one way or another. Jaspers, Chestov, and Kierkegaard, all in their own way, deny human reason and fully embrace an irrational universe, associating that with God.

..and if your up to it pages 64 on in Kierkegaard for beginners which a FREE copy can be found at

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgu ... inners.pdf

(which is the only book I've had enough time to read on Kierkegaard)

-- Updated January 1st, 2017, 4:25 pm to add the following --

Greta wrote:My problem with the God debate is that it "steals our minds". What if we considered the nature of reality without assuming God or gods are out there. What may we perceive? We'll never know, because all discussion is either filtered through the lenses of theism and materialism, making middle ground difficult to investigate.

Chances are, however, that the answers we seek surely occupy that elusive middle ground. Why should reality discussions always be framed around the polar warring sides, each as intolerant of alternative ideas as the other? Maybe there is some remarkable connection between consciousness and other dimensions, or maybe the Planck scale or our perception of time, that brings genuine spiritual aspects to reality? Maybe afterlives are real but it has nothing to do with the kinds of things claimed in scriptures?

I almost agree 100%, there is too much effort arguing about 'God' instead of arguing about other matters. However there is a catch in this problem, in order to NOT talk about 'God' and other Abrahamic concepts(which might not be appropriate in the 'religious' forum) we need to either talk about Dharmic religious/philosophical beliefs (which is ok to do here if anyone has studied them) primitive religious beliefs (also 'ok') or other ethical and political/social issues (which are not as 'ok', as the former two).

In a nutshell, in order to not talk about 'God' around theists (and sometimes atheist) one has to expect the participates to change or switch the Paradigm/Ideology/Narrative/Context/etc. that one usually uses to perceives reality. This is almost as difficult to do as to switch from one religion to another or to switch from one social context to another. Since I have a little background studying 'comparative religions' and debating on forums for over a decade on religious topics including Dharmic/Taoist beliefs I have a some experience switching from one paradigm to another, but it isn't something really easy to do.

However this problem isn't exclusive to Abrahamic religions. My dad use to be a nuclear health physicist who taught me some of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. For people that work and are trained in nuclear power, along with some of their supporters, they see the dangers of radiation one way and the people that are against nuclear power, such as Green Peace and NIMBYs, have a different perceptive. I often few the people that are trained and work in the industry know better than the ones that are anti-nuclear groups but it is hard to really explain it to most people that don't like it; just as it is hard for the Anti or NIMBYs to convince those that work in the nuclear industry.

Since you seem to think along the similar lines as I do I think I should suggest you look at some (or perhaps all) of the following 'for Beginners' guides that talk about various aspects about religion, comparative religions, ethics, and philosophical aspects modern social problems:

Postmodernism For Beginners
Eastern philosophy for Beginners
Philosophy For Beginners
Heidegger For Beginners
Kierkegaard For Beginners

(and some links to them)

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgu ... inners.pdf

(had to delete Amazon links since this site bans them )


...since I have ADHD I don't have time to focus and read over most traditional philosophical books so these books help me understand certain aspects of philosophy that I may not understood just reading on the forums. Hopefully you find this more useful than having to waste too much of your time just arguing theism/atheism here or elsewhere.

Ormond, as Fooloso suggests, if you are in fact interested in the reality and not gaming the argument, you would have followed up on my last post where we were progressing beyond the usual debate, but instead you couldn't resist following the "shiny baubles" of what I shall dub T.U.R.D. - The Usual Religion Debate. (Believe it or not, the phrase came before I saw the acronym - provenance!).

What of my objection to your presentism advocacy or discussion of human longings? Do they just get flushed away with TURD? :)

Spiral Out wrote:

Ormond wrote:Atheism is the belief, consciously understood and publicly stated or not, that human reason is qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of God claims. Ideological atheists are people who either don't understand their own belief system, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit what it is.

Are you speaking of atheists or anti-religion ideologues? These are very different people.

What you seem to be missing is that you cannot affirm, deny or even simply be without the Infinite (or "God," to use the more generic term) without having some idea of what it is that you're affirming or pretending to be without.

"T.U.R.D." -- What a great acronym!

Ormond wrote:
Your skepticism is just a symptom of the underlying faith based belief that skepticism (i.e., human reason) is relevant to such huge topics. Despite all your impressive learning, you've failed to understand the most obvious properties of your own perspective. In fairness to you and other forum members, this blind spot is also shared by many thought leaders on the subject.

-- Updated January 1st, 2017, 5:18 pm to add the following --

I forgot to add that it would behoove skeptics to read The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston

Ormond wrote:

You are perpetuating the argument by misrepresenting the viewed expressed by others.

The problem is that those others don't understand their own views.

The issue here is not theological but semantic, that is, what the term atheism means.

In the dictionary it means: not a theist.

In the real world it means: a faith based believer in human reason.

Please observe how absolutely determined pretty much every forum atheist is in resisting this positive description of their perspective. This is a 100% purely emotional agenda. You desperately don't want to admit that atheism is based on faith in reason, because then you'd have to prove the qualifications of reason, which you already know you can't do. And so then instead of being intellectually honest like forum atheists are always demanding of theists, you dodge and weave and duck and cover and run and hide and anything else you can think of to keep the self flattering image of fantasy superiority alive. All you've accomplished is to replicate some of the lamest aspects of religion under a different colored flag.

Sorry to be so harsh, but for crying out loud, how many times does this have to be explained???

I will speak for myself, but I think others may agree: my atheism is based on skepticism concerning the “very largest questions”.

No, it's not based on that at all. You are completely utterly wrong, about your own relationship with your own perspective. Your skepticism is just a symptom of the underlying faith based belief that skepticism (ie. human reason) is relevant to such huge topics. Despite all your impressive learning, you've failed to understand the most obvious properties of your own perspective. In fairness to you and other forum members, this blind spot is also shared by many thought leaders on the subject.

Indeed, your irrationality is shared by this poster, who can't possibly be sane or he wouldn't keep writing on such topics. So I suggest an efficient solution to this entire debate.

Somebody shoot me!

Yes, some of us have something like 'faith' when we adhere to skepticism, hedonism, etc and use hedonistic calculus/game theory to figure out how and why to live our lives but some 'faith' in human reasoning and human rights is NOT a reason to outright dismiss a person's position just as it isn't a reason to outright dismiss a person's position because they are a theist and believe in 'God'. Years ago I use to make similar arguments myself (when I felt like arguing FOR theism and AGAINST atheism), but you have to be careful NOT to outright just dismiss someones religion/system of beliefs because doing so would be very biased; as well as being both a Appeal to Extremes fallacy as well as a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

I'm aware of the turtles all the way down/Münchhausen trilemma/problem of bootstrapping/etc. issues so I (as well as likely some other forum members) don't really need to be taught or reminded of such issues. If I believe in skepticism/hedonism(even though I'm also partial to nihilism) I don't need to be reminded of the 'absurdity' of subscribing to any system of beliefs since I already been there, done that, and got the t-shirt; and I've done it enough to know that when someone stresses such an argument as you have been doing that your just about at the point where the so called 'philosophical football' is about to leave the field where the possibility of 'rational' conversation goes out the window and everything is just speculation at best.

In a nutshell I guess what I'm trying to really say is that I have enjoyed some of your previous posts(even though you didn't reply to many of my posts or replies), that I find you are fairly rational as a theist, and hope that the conversations with you don't descend into bickering or worse as they seem to do when atheist and theist argue.
I have already stated in other posts that I consider myself somewhat in the category of 'spiritual but not religious category' which may apply to some other atheist, but I never got a reply from you or white dragon whether either of you consider such a position decent enough to consider it as a 'middle way' between atheism and theism.

I think in some Dharmic religions/system of beliefs (as well as some others) there is an acceptance of people that try hard enough to find their way, even if that path is not part of any mainstream religion or set of social beliefs. If some theist feel that this is almost as acceptable as studying/adhering to typical organized religions in Abrahamic or Dharmic systems, then it might help resolve some of the friction between them and atheist. However I think the problem is that many theist don't understand and/or respect Dharmic or other systems of beliefs and would likely find it difficult for people to accept those that get to 'cherry pick' whatever they believe in, even if there has been enough effort in such beliefs to give it real substance.

Ormond:

In the real world it means: a faith based believer in human reason.

Do you imagine that you are the arbiter of what all words mean in the real world or just this one? Are you deliberately trying to sabotage reasoned speech? You have not presented anything in what I have said that supports your claim. It is as if I were to say black and you insisted without reason or evidence that I meant white. But perhaps the real issue for you is that of reason. You are suspicious of reason and thus conclude that unreasonable claims should be given equal consideration.

Your skepticism is just a symptom of the underlying faith based belief that skepticism (ie. human reason) is relevant to such huge topics.

Quite the opposite. I am skeptical that reason is determinate with regard to “such huge topics”. We cannot think or reason to answers that lie beyond our ability to know. If I said only this much would you disagree? How does this differ from your position?

Agnosticism is a form of skepticism. Now I am not foolish enough to ascribe any particular form of agnosticism to you, but some agnostics hold to beliefs regarding such huge topics and others withhold belief because they are uncertain or because they see no place for belief in something they are ignorant of, and some do not believe. But if I was foolish enough to do this I could pick one option and insist that this is what you believe despite anything you might say to the contrary.

From Dclements:

In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".

That would mean that Kierkegaard did the "humanly impossible" by finding meaning in Christ's teachings

Jaspers, Chestov, and Kierkegaard, all in their own way, deny human reason and fully embrace an irrational universe, associating that with God.

Suprarational is not equivalent to Irrational. Kierkegard did not deny human reason, only recognized it's limitations.

Greta wrote:Ormond, as Fooloso suggests, if you are in fact interested in the reality and not gaming the argument, you would have followed up on my last post where we were progressing beyond the usual debate,

As best I can recall I did reply to that post of yours regarding exploration of a middle ground. What happens after that is beyond my control given that all my posts go through the moderation system.

Dclements wrote:In a nutshell I guess what I'm trying to really say is that I have enjoyed some of your previous posts(even though you didn't reply to many of my posts or replies), that I find you are fairly rational as a theist,

Thanks but um, I'm not a theist.

Ormond wrote:Thanks but um, I'm not a theist.

A.K.A. an ATHEIST.

Ormond said: "Atheism is a positive knowledge claim, that apparently no atheist can understand and certainly not admit to, because then they'd have to defend their claim, and the whole point of ideological atheism is to remain on the attack."

"Atheism is the belief, consciously understood and publicly stated or not, that human reason is qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of reality, ie. the scope of God claims. Ideological atheists are people who either don't understand their own belief system, or are too intellectually dishonest to admit what it is."

We have an atheist who argues against atheism. Too funny.

>>>

Dark Matter wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:
Are you speaking of atheists or anti-religion ideologues? These are very different people.

What you seem to be missing is that you cannot affirm, deny or even simply be without the Infinite (or "God," to use the more generic term) without having some idea of what it is that you're affirming or pretending to be without.

What?

Theism is not a default position or an inherent principle of life. Humans are not born theist.

"Atheists" before theists were just called "people". C'mon, get serious.