Philosophy Discussion Forums

You have not presented anything in what I have said that supports your claim.

Please explain to us how you came to your atheist perspective, without referencing human reason in your explanation. What you would discover in such an attempt is that atheism is entirely dependent upon human reason, and thus only as valid as reason is qualified. If you can't prove human reason is qualified for the task at hand, then all atheist ideology comes crashing to the ground.

You already apply this very same reasoning to your relationship with theism. You see no proof that the Bible is qualified to answer the largest questions, thus you dismiss scriptural arguments as being credible on those topics. You're already doing the very thing I am asking you to do, with the exception that you refuse to apply that process to your own beliefs.

You are suspicious of reason and thus conclude that unreasonable claims should be given equal consideration.

I am suspicious of your loyalty to reason. I'm not pressing you to convert to theism, but to your own chosen methodology.

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?

If you are skeptical of the ability of human reason to address topics the scale of God theories, then upon what basis do you label such theories "unreasonable"?

How does this differ from your position?

My position is that the fact of the matter is that we are ignorant, and that this isn't a failure, but a gift. As example, what makes childhood such a special time in our lives? Ignorance. What makes young love so special? Ignorance. What makes so many human experiences new, fresh, exciting, meaningful? Ignorance. The entire theist vs. atheist debate is a misguided attempt to conquer ignorance, when we should instead be turning 180 degrees and running to embrace it.

No, not in every arena of life. In that part of the human experience that causes us to reach for gods, or seek to destroy them. Instead of trying to sell or defeat theism or atheism, I'm attempting to get to the bottom of the need that gives rise to both, and address the problem at that level, at the source.

I see that fundamental human problem as being the illusion of separation generated by the inherently divisive nature of thought. The pain of that experience of separation can not be healed with any theist or atheist argument, because all the arguments from all sides are made of the very thing causing the problem. Thus, the entire debate is pointless, except that it may eventually reveal it's own pointlessness to those conducting a serious inquiry.

Many members here have succeeded in liberating themselves from theism. I'm simply asking that we continue the very same process by which that occurred and over throw atheist ideology too. When you left theism you started on a journey. Ok, good idea, that seems like an appropriate decision for many people.

But don't stop and build a little fort.

Keep going on the journey.

Ormond wrote:

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.

It was post #296 onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 42#p281742 but never mind, you seem to be having too much fun with The Usual Religion Debate

Spiral Out wrote:
We have an atheist who argues against atheism. Too funny.

What's funny about that? One of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century argued against theism, and he was hardly an atheist.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2017, 12:15 am to add the following --

Ormond wrote: Many members here have succeeded in liberating themselves from theism. I'm simply asking that we continue the very same process by which that occurred and over throw atheist ideology too. When you left theism you started on a journey. Ok, good idea, that seems like an appropriate decision for many people.

But don't stop and build a little fort.

Keep going on the journey.

Didn't I express similar sentiments somewhere?

Ormond:

Please explain to us how you came to your atheist perspective, without referencing human reason in your explanation.

As I have said, I am as you are, ignorant with regard to what lies beyond the limits of our understanding. I simply do not believe any of the claims or stories of what I or others might imagine that lie beyond the limits of my understanding to be true. I believe that they are all just things we tell ourselves and others. I do not believe them to be true, but do not claim them to be false. I do not deny the possibility that I may be wrong, but again, it is a matter of what I believe not of what I claim to know.

What you would discover in such an attempt is that atheism is entirely dependent upon human reason, and thus only as valid as reason is qualified.

Belief is not independent of reason but not dependent on it either.Once again, it is not a matter of reason. It is about claims that are beyond the limits of reason. For some such claims resonate or are in some way compelling, but they are not for me.

If you can't prove human reason is qualified for the task at hand, then all atheist ideology comes crashing to the ground.

You keep repeating the same thing that I keep denying. We are in agreement with regard to the limits of reason. It has nothing to do with proof. I do not have an atheist ideology, whatever that might mean to you. Just as you and many others do not believe all religious claims, I do not either. They, however, may believe some religious claims, but I do not believe those either. As Salman Rushdie said, those who believe are atheist with one exception: their own beliefs.

You see no proof that the Bible is qualified to answer the largest questions, thus you dismiss scriptural arguments as being credible on those topics.

If the Bible is the word of men and the limits of our understanding do not extend to the largest questions then why should scriptural arguments and claims be considered any more or less credible than any other? Some do find them believable and are persuaded, but none have persuaded me. If you have been following the thread, however, I think it evident that I have more than a passing familiarity with the books of the Bible. I have not spent many years studying them in order to dismiss them. Their value for me is in what they say about how the authors think about man and the world.

I am suspicious of your loyalty to reason.

My “loyalty” to reason includes an awareness of its limits and its traps. What you are suspicious of has nothing to do with my understanding, use of, and expectations for reason. You attack an uniformed, generic notion of what reason is, it is nothing more than a boilerplate argument you trot out without regard to what is actually being said.

If you are skeptical of the ability of human reason to address topics the scale of God theories, then upon what basis do you label such theories "unreasonable"?

If reason cannot address God then no theory of God can be reasonable because it is not within the scope of reason to address such matters. Whether I would judge a particular theory to be unreasonable depends on what the theory claims, but in general it is judged unreasonable because it runs counter to what we actually know.

The entire theist vs. atheist debate is a misguided attempt to conquer ignorance.

That is your own misguided assumption. You seem loathe to conquer your own ignorance on this matter. The reason is, I suspect, that you have spent too much time and energy arguing against atheism that you are unwilling to acknowledge that not all atheists hold to the views you have practiced arguing against.

Fooloso4 wrote:

I think it evident that I have more than a passing familiarity with the books of the Bible. I have not spent many years studying them in order to dismiss them. Their value for me is in what they say about how the authors think about man and the world.

I agree with your entire post, above. I take up the above small point because I want to put it to you that , apart from sheer entertainment, the value to a reader of any imaginative text including a novel is how it applies to the reader's own understanding of the condition of being alive in a challenging world. Thus some texts not excluding fiction enable learning and sometimes even paradigm shifts in understanding and wisdom. The Bible isn't any different from other literature in respect to its capacity as a bearer of meaning and one doesn't have to privilege it because of tradition.

I've been taught that some bits of The Bible are not meant by authors or users to be used for learning but for devotions, to induce a certain mood of reverence perhaps, so I'd exclude those meaningless bits whichever they are (I was told that the Gospel of John is one of those)which are more akin to music than to learning. However, the whole of The Bible is used by some people as a devotional text for inducing a religious mood, or as an otherwise meaningless part of the churchy experience, a sort of mumbo jumbo.

Fooloso4 wrote:As I have said, I am as you are, ignorant with regard to what lies beyond the limits of our understanding.

But you claim to know what doesn't exist beyond those limits. Or, if you prefer, you feel you are in a position to question claims about what lies beyond those limits. If you are ignorant, upon what basis can you reject or question?

I do not believe them to be true...

Why do you not believe them to be true? Because you have analyzed the claims with human reason, a methodology you judge qualified for that task. If that judgement is incorrect, or at least not proven, then you have no basis upon which to build your rejection of those claims. Obviously you have every right to, I'm not challenging that at all.

it is not a matter of reason. It is about claims that are beyond the limits of reason.

You're arguing with yourself now, aren't you? I think the matter is far simpler than you are now trying to make it. Atheists always reference human reason when explaining their rejection of god theories. That is, until someone challenges the qualifications of reason, or asks for proof of it's ability, and then the conversations descend in to an endlessly complicated web of definitional obfuscation etc.

Why not do the same thing with atheism that you already do with theism? You see no proof that the Bible is qualified to speak to the very largest questions, so you dismiss it's claims. I'm just employing that very same exact process in my challenges to atheism. I'm being loyal to the principles of atheism and am calling upon you to do the same, given that you label yourself an atheist.

We are in agreement with regard to the limits of reason. It has nothing to do with proof.

Why is this so very complicated when your beliefs are being challenged, and so very simple when it is the theist's beliefs which are being challenged?

I do not have an atheist ideology, whatever that might mean to you.

Sigh... Theism is the belief that holy books are qualified. Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified. That's all there is to it, but you don't want it to be that simple because then you'd have to face the same challenge you reasonably apply to theism.

Just as you and many others do not believe all religious claims, I do not either.

Right. WHY do you not believe them? WHY?? Stop chanting and start digging. Why do you not believe religious claims? If I asked a theist this question they would happily answer it directly without delay. But if I ask an atheist it always involves 72 pages of round and round the mulberry bush.

If you have been following the thread, however, I think it evident that I have more than a passing familiarity with the books of the Bible. I have not spent many years studying them in order to dismiss them. Their value for me is in what they say about how the authors think about man and the world.

Yes, I do agree here, you are very educated on these topics.

That's good, but perhaps you might now study your own perspective with the same disciplined determination. My argument is that should you do that you would discover you are in essentially in the same position as the ancient authors of the Bible. That is, you've built a sophisticated set of perspectives upon a foundation of faith. Seeing that might give you greater insight in to the Bible authors, given that you are proceeding in much the same way that they did. You'd no longer be limited to studying ancient people's in the abstract, you could then study yourself.

If reason cannot address God then no theory of God can be reasonable because it is not within the scope of reason to address such matters.

Ok, good, so let's dump the entire theist and atheist ball game then. Or, let's be honest enough that we, whether theist or atheist, are staying in that ball game as a matter of faith. Either of these options would be a step forward, in my pompous opinion.

That is your own misguided assumption. You seem loathe to conquer your own ignorance on this matter. The reason is, I suspect, that you have spent too much time and energy arguing against atheism that you are unwilling to acknowledge that not all atheists hold to the views you have practiced arguing against.

All atheists (with the exception of babies, the insane etc) base their perspective on human reason, a methodology which has never been proven qualified to address the very largest of questions. Only on a philosophy forum would this have to be explained 10,000 times.

Insight into higher realities is arrested when we are in the habit of moving forward only when there is one way in which to go. As soon as there is more than one way, we are halted as effectively as there is no way, but what has halted is our habit of moving only when a single way it's presented. We feel we have to cope or do battle when confronted with alternative ways of knowing.

If we are going to see Freedom as an integral part of the act of knowing, we are going to have to change our attitudes and expectations with regards to alternatives. As things are now, both atheists and theists feel that they are doing a service to themselves and humanity by using reason to relieve themselves and others of the terrible burden of Freedom. For freedom implies an exploration of alternative ways of experiencing themselves and the universe, but to do this we will need to experience the presence of alternatives not as a discomfort, but as the pleasure of creative possibility.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2017, 2:39 pm to add the following --

The linear way of thinking exhibited in post #319 is restrictive and self-idolizing.

Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you do is for yourself—and there isn’t one.
—Wei Wu Wei

Dark Matter wrote:

What's funny about that? One of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century argued against theism, and he was hardly an atheist.

Who do you mean? Don Cupitt?

Oh dear, while I was gone it appears some ornery bombastic fire breathing blowhard hacked in to my account and posted in my name. That happens sometimes because some people are afraid of the coming fundamentalist agnostic utopia, and so they lash out in fear. Now that the um, real me is back, let me try correct the record with something more constructive.

Dark Matter wrote: For freedom implies an exploration of alternative ways of experiencing themselves and the universe, but to do this we will need to experience the presence of alternatives not as a discomfort, but as the pleasure of creative possibility.

To see one alternative, we can observe what theism, atheism and regular agnosticism all share in common, an assumption that the point of the inquiry should be to establish a "knowing". This is a very understandable assumption because a great deal of human life is about creating symbolic representations of reality which we try to make as accurate as possible. It's natural we would also attempt to do this on these topics.

The problem is that there's no convincing evidence that it's possible to create credible knowings on the largest of questions. Perhaps someday, but certainly not any time soon. It doesn't seem rational to continue with the same old theist vs. atheist debate, given that this never seems to generate the knowing we seek, and doing the same thing over and over expecting different results was Einstein's definition of insanity. So what then?

We have the option to look deeper than the arguments for or against theism or atheism to the core assumption they both share, the notion that creating a knowing should be the goal. If we become skeptical of that goal to the point of discarding it we are thus liberated from all the arguments from all the various sides. We no longer care who is winning or losing, because in our own minds we've challenged just not one side or the other, but the entire debate. This is what I've been trying to get at, let's try to be as skeptical of the debate itself as we are of any positions within the debate. Assuming we toss the debate aside, then what?

The largest of questions offer us another worthy goal, the experience of our ignorance. Typically such a goal sounds absurd, because isn't ignorance our enemy? That's way too simplistic a relationship to have with ignorance. Ignorance can be a big problem, but it's also much of what makes life a joy to explore. How incredibly boring life would be if we already knew everything about everything! If we observe closely we will see that ignorance is an important ingredient in many of the experiences we most value.

There's another reason to embrace ignorance on these topics. Doing so tends to empty our mind of our so many thoughts on these subjects. After all, what's the point of our opinions and positions if the reality is that none of us have any idea what we're talking about? But what good is an empty mind??

When our attention is not being chronically distracted by the symbolic realm between our ears, we have a much greater ability to observe the real world. This isn't complicated. If you were trying to focus on this post, but there's a blaring TV going on in the background, you might turn down the TV so your attention wouldn't be so divided. Like that.

But why should we care about how well we can observe the real world? The real world is the subject of the inquiry!! Our biggest sin as philosophers is to forget this, and aim our focus instead at what we think about the real world.

If we could establish an accurate knowing on the largest of questions, that would be great. But there's no evidence that's currently possible. So a rational practical response involves focusing on what we do have in abundance, our ignorance, and learning how to make the best possible use of it.

Ormond wrote:
The problem is that there's no convincing evidence that it's possible to create credible knowings on the largest of questions.

True -- but only if is assumed there is only only one way of knowing.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2017, 8:33 pm to add the following --

Belindi wrote:Dark Matter wrote:

What's funny about that? One of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century argued against theism, and he was hardly an atheist.

Who do you mean? Don Cupitt?

Paul Tillich

Ormond:

But you claim to know what doesn't exist beyond those limits. Or, if you prefer, you feel you are in a position to question claims about what lies beyond those limits.

Two different claims. As to the first, I do not know what exists or does not exist beyond our human limits. As to the second, I do not think that anyone else does either. If they did then the limits would not be human limits. Since they do not know then any claim they make is questionable.

Why do you not believe them to be true? Because you have analyzed the claims with human reason, a methodology you judge qualified for that task.

Why do you ask me questions if you are only interested in providing your own answers that you have devised without regard to anything I have said? Do you believe every claim made by every person regarding the divine? If you do not accept them is it because you have analyzed the claims with human reason, a methodology you judge qualified for that task?

You're arguing with yourself now, aren't you?

Apparently I am since you are not listening. You are insisting that you know better than I why I do not believe what I do not believe, and you have ignored what I have actually said. If a claim is beyond the limits of reason that means it cannot be resolved by reason. The fact that such claims cannot be resolved by reason does not mean that I should accept every or any claim made about things we do not know and cannot determine to be true.

I think the matter is far simpler than you are now trying to make it. Atheists always reference human reason when explaining their rejection of god theories.

I am aware of your fondness for simplistic answers, but in this case it comes at the expense of ignoring what I have said and instead giving your little speech about what atheists always do.

That is, until someone challenges the qualifications of reason, or asks for proof of it's ability, and then the conversations descend in to an endlessly complicated web of definitional obfuscation etc.

I have repeatedly noted the limits of reason. I take it as a given, but that upsets the argument you have developed so you ignore it and provide the same tired argument again and again. A standard dictionary definition is hardly "definitional obfuscation". It is your rejection of such definitions that is obfuscation, because based on those definitions you have no argument.

Why not do the same thing with atheism that you already do with theism? You see no proof that the Bible is qualified to speak to the very largest questions, so you dismiss it's claims. I'm just employing that very same exact process in my challenges to atheism. I'm being loyal to the principles of atheism and am calling upon you to do the same, given that you label yourself an atheist.

What you fail to see, or I now strongly suspect you are simply ignoring because it does not fit your argument, is that I am not making any claims. I am simply saying that I do not accept the claims that you have said you do not accept either.

Why is this so very complicated when your beliefs are being challenged, and so very simple when it is the theist's beliefs which are being challenged?

It is complicated because you are not challenging my beliefs, you are challenging a particular atheistic position that I do not hold. If you were actually addressing me then it would be challenging my lack of belief, but then of course you would be challenging yourself as an agnostic as well.

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified.

That is your definition of atheism, not mine or dictionaries either.

That's all there is to it …

And as long as you maintain this position all you are doing is bashing straw men.

WHY do you not believe them? WHY??

I will ask you the same question. Why don’t you believe them?

I have already provided an answer: such claims do not resonate with me. At various times in my life different claims were compelling and did move me to believe that they were true but that is no longer the case.

That's good, but perhaps you might now study your own perspective with the same disciplined determination.

I am really getting tired of the condescension. Self-examination and reflection on such matters has been something I have done since I was a child.

Ok, good, so let's dump the entire theist and atheist ball game then.

I am not interested in playing your ball game.

All atheists (with the exception of babies, the insane etc) base their perspective on human reason, a methodology which has never been proven qualified to address the very largest of questions. Only on a philosophy forum would this have to be explained 10,000 times.

You are not explaining anything other than your own uninformed opinion. You ignore what I and others have said, you ignore definitions, and repeat the same inanities as if you are bestowing your superior wisdom on us.

I think most people have got it wrong. Genesis reminds us that the father means fathers, . . . 'let us make man in our image'. In Job 4:18, He charged his angels with folly, much as the United Nations do today. I agree with all those cultures around the world that our fathers from the stars did come.
God I believe is the essence from which all things materialise from, the Holy Spirit, and that includes the human mind, as we are like little seeds belonging to it. Heaven and hell revolve around it, both are as we will it. No living thing can see it, but without it nothing would matter. Sounds to me like dark matter, only our instruments and our knowledge of them let us know that it must be.
As for Jesus, he could have been genetically modified and given an ordinary mother. His lost years could have been spent with the father or fathers whose technology was able to show him the three great cities in the sky which the Mahabharata spoke about. In it, one of those cities of the Gods went to war with the other two, it rebelled and was sent crashing into the earth. One third of the angels in heaven were cast out of heaven and onto the earth.
Jesus said he was with the father when he was shown Lucifer cast down like a bolt of lightning from the sky. He also said that we like him are all sons and daughters of the Father, or fathers, and that in heaven there are those who are with the father that are much greater in importance than him.
So, anyway, apart from a bit of a rant, I thought it better to share that with you all, because its up to us to look after this world and the people in it, before they come back and teach us a bloody good lesson on what is holy, and what is profane. I guess.
We today can raise the dead, we watch them every day on the telly. Anymore risen and they would not be the dead, they would be the living. These guys, my guess, have the technology to retrieve everything including the dead, much more than any book could tell. Any time any place and anywhere is most likely their domain, forever and ever....Amen.

Ormond wrote:

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.

So your just a atheist or agnostic playing the devil's advocate all this time since even you don't believe in 'God'.

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,

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

Dclements wrote:So your just a atheist or agnostic playing the devil's advocate all this time since even you don't believe in 'God'.

I find Ormond to be a weather-vane... he will face against the wind always and let it out in a stream of golden shaft.

I find his arguments unconvincing, because he does not follow through, he abandons topics and evades questions while he insists on his questions answered, and he argues by asking questions. I find that spineless. I think arguments ought to be stated in nominative sentences. Otherwise you can do what Ormond does: dance around the argument, contradicting himself, others, and not follow up, and still claim to come out on top, since he never makes a stand actually. He asks questions. That's the strength of his what seems to me faux-intellect.

To be quite honest: I never even read his posts. I admire you guys out there who give him the proper attention all of us deserve here. I read one post of his, tried to get a clarification in order to properly answer his question, and he did not give it to me. No big deal, but it is indicative of his argumenting style: there is no discipline there, only a playful flight of fancy, and I can't for the life of me decide if he actually has any clue or not. But one thing is for sure: I'm not going into the quagmire of trying to find sense in his quirky, quizzical posts, and in his quickly jumping tracks without picking up the pieces first; too much work for too little return.

Dark Matter wrote:

What's funny about that? One of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century argued against theism, and he was hardly an atheist.


Who do you mean? Don Cupitt?


Paul Tillich

I haven't read Paul Tillich. I tried and found him difficult to understand but I might have another go. Don Cupitt does in fact fit your description.

Mind-dependent God, i.e. the non-theist's God is obviously , for some people, the way to go. However for perhaps most people from cultures that traditionally have been Abrahamic and theist, it's difficult for them to understand how a god which doesn't exist in a thingy sense can be important for anybody.

-- Updated January 3rd, 2017, 5:24 am to add the following --

Ormond wrote:

All atheists (with the exception of babies, the insane etc) base their perspective on human reason, a methodology which has never been proven qualified to address the very largest of questions. Only on a philosophy forum would this have to be explained 10,000 times.

But some 'atheists' base their 'methodology' on faith, or on tradition which might for instance be pantheistic.