Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[TagliatelliMonster]

So , he has different sets of definitions.
So what?

So that makes honest open communication impossible.
Words can have multiple meanings. And if he is going to insist on using only one meaning exclusively, then he's only going to end up misrepresenting people's views when they are using the other meanings.

Atheism represents the position of people who don't belive in the existence of the supernatural dieties like God/s.
We get that and we accept that position.

@PureX doesn't. He insists that it must mean more then that.

It's oposite of what we as Theists belive.
But why you get so 'triggered' when 'belief system' is mentioned?

I get triggered when people insist on misrepresent my views after I've corrected them countless times.
And it's not just me. It's plenty of people here.

'A belief system is an ideology or set of principles that helps us to interpret our everyday reality.'

So How is this definition wrong?

It is wrong as a description of atheism, because atheism is merely a label to note that you aren't convinced by the claims of theism.
That is not an ideology or belief system. It is a word that notes what belief system you do NOT have.

It's not hard.

My point was that you can't decide what 'belief system' means.You don't get to define the definitions.

I'm not arguing about what "belief system" or "ideology" means or doesn't mean.
I'm just saying that atheism is not a belief system or ideology.
Instead, it just means that my belief system or ideology is not theistic. That is all.

Ok , Personally I don't agree with everything he says , but why this constant persecution?

It's reactionary to the constant strawmanning.
If (s)he stops using the strawman, I'll stop pointing it out.

Do you know how words had different meaning through time?

I don't care what words "used" to mean.
That isn't relevant to today's use of language.

 

[PureX]

No, I don't want certainty. In fact, I'm with you up to a point in believing that absolute certainty is probably unattainable. I'll settle for a high probability.

But how can these things ever tell us anything of value when no information is available by which to measure our propositions? And that's the case, by definition, when we talk about "outside time and space". Take imagination as an example. With some amount of data, I can imagine lots of things that have some connection to reality. If I see a mammal with four legs, I can imagine one with five legs. That seems unlikely as an even number of limbs is the general standard, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility. But with no data at all?

Look, I actually would like some of these fantastical things to be true (the world would be a lot less "ordinary"), so I have some sympathy with your point of view, but so far you have failed to show me how these methods (imagination, logical reasoning ....) can lead anywhere when there is no starting point.

I'm about to write to @siti with an alternative approach, that may interest you.

This is all about humans dealing with a meta-mystery that they cannot solve. The mystery of existence. And we humans don't much like mysteries because they make us vulnerable. And that makes us afraid. So even though we cannot solve this mystery, we still want very much to find a way to deal with it so we don't have to feel vulnerable and afraid all the time. And that's where or various avenues of inquiry (and willful ignorance, too) come in. They help us to speculate, and to 'act as if', to see if it helps. Philosophy, theology, religion, faith, belief, and yes ... scientism; these are all methodologies we humans use to try and find some functional peace in the face of this great and uncomfortable mystery of being. Some of these methods work better for some people than for others. None are right or wrong. They're just possible options for us to try. And the only reason people fight about them is because they're trying to insist that their own chosen method has led them to that magical solution to the mystery. But of course they can't really know that. It just gave them a solution they could "believe in". And now they're going to fight to hold onto it.

 

[PureX]

OK lets get this out of the way first...

You have now twice accused me of not "reading to understand" but to "argue" or "fight"...and you also said:


And in all of that you have not made any attempt to show logically where any of my statements have been wrong or made any attempt to defend your argument:


My point was that this is a "cosmological" argument...and like the two other versions of cosmological arguments I cited as examples, is, as you yourself pointed out, based on ignorance...basically they all end up with:

We don't know what the cause/source of existence/the universe is...so let's call the cause/source "God"

Yours is, in fact, logically more bereft than the two arguments I cited as examples because:

1. Your first premise "existence exists" is really nothing more than a restatement of Saint Anselm's "supreme existence" or the Thomist notion of "Being itself"...but the problem is, if it is not a mere tautology, it is circular in that the explanation (existence) contains the very thing (exists) it is meant to explain - which means it explains nothing at all.

Worse, if 'existence' is taken as a universal, then it cannot also be a particular - it is analogous to saying "redness is (itself) red" - it is obvious that redness does not make itself red - likewise with existence, how can existence make itself exist without first (i.e. being logically prior to) existing?

...and if 'existence' is not a 'universal' then in what way (philosophically, never mind in reality) does it bestow 'existence' on the particulars - such as planets and people etc?

As you say "we have no idea how or why" existence exists...it is indeed a mystery - an utterly insoluble mystery that makes it a very shaky foundation on which to base an argument...

The only possible solution is to claim that existence itself is self-existent...

...worse, again, it could equally be true that "existence doesn't exist" - i.e. nothing really exists (at least not in any sense that would make any sense to existing particulars like humans) - and the entire thing - existence itself and every existing thing it establishes the existence of is illusory...we have no way of proving that this is not the case.

2. "The universe exists"...OK - fine with that (with the same worse again corollary that it could be an illusion); "within that mystery" - the mystery of existence or being - OK again...but...

"And it is finite"...we simply can't know that.

3. "the former [existence] appears to transcend in scope and power, the latter [the universe]" - exactly how do you come to this conclusion? There is no evidence that anything beyond "the universe" (which by definition means "everything that exists") exists - and if your first premise "existence exists" indicates that existence is self-existent, what is stopping us from making the same claim about the universe, i.e. that the universe simply exists, or is self-existent - in which case there is no need for any "transcendence" - every other existing thing exists as a logical consequence of the existence of the universe.

4. If there is no "transcendence", then the word "God" might just as well refer to the universe itself - or it is completely redundant and has nothing to refer to.

This is not "fighting" - it is showing that I have read and understood your argument and I disagree with it for very sound reasons which I have now explained in some detail.

I offered you the logic theism employs in the face of our universal ignorance. You rejected it because it didn't comport with your preconceived bias. And all you offer in return are arguments.

I'm not here to argue with your preconceived biases. It's a waste of time. If all you want to do is maintain your biases, then so be it. Maintain them. But it has nothing to do with me. If you want to understand a different way of thinking, then stop fighting with everything I post and learn how to honestly consider the new Information.

 

[Alien826]

This is all about humans dealing with a meta-mystery that they cannot solve. The mystery of existence. And we humans don't much like mysteries because they make us vulnerable. And that makes us afraid. So even though we cannot solve this mystery, we still want very much to find a way to deal with it so we don't have to feel vulnerable and afraid all the time. And that's where or various avenues of inquiry (and willful ignorance, too) come in. They help us to speculate, and to 'act as if', to see if it helps. Philosophy, theology, religion, faith, belief, and yes ... scientism; these are all methodologies we humans use to try and find some functional peace in the face of this great and uncomfortable mystery of being. Some of these methods work better for some people than for others. None are right or wrong. They're just possible options for us to try. And the only reason people fight about them is because they're trying to insist that their own chosen method has led them to that magical solution to the mystery. But of course they can't really know that. It just gave them a solution they could "believe in". And now they're going to fight to hold onto it.

So have we now moved away from discussing which approach works best and are now talking about which makes us (or each of us as an individual) feel more comfortable? There's a huge difference. I have no problem with anyone believing anything they want, so long as it works for them and doesn't affect others negatively.

Personally, I may not feel too comfortable knowing that something really bad could happen to me, but I want to know because then maybe I can avoid it. You, or anyone may prefer not to know, and you have the right to make that choice.

Incidentally, and you may not mean that, you seem to be suggesting that everyone has this feeling of vulnerability in the face of ultimate mysteries. I would suggest that most of us don't think about it so long as our basic needs are met.

 

[siti]

I offered you the logic theism employs in the face of our universal ignorance. You rejected it because it didn't comport with your preconceived bias. And all you offer in return are arguments.

I'm not here to argue with your preconceived biases. It's a waste of time. If all you want to do is maintain your biases, then so be it. Maintain them. But it has nothing to do with me. If you want to understand a different way of thinking, then stop fighting with everything I post and learn how to honestly consider the new Information.

What you did was post an argument in a debate forum...I rejected your argument because - for the reasons I have clearly detailed previously, your argument does not (in my opinion) meet the requirements of sound logical argumentation...I did not present any "preconceived biases" I presented logical arguments with which you are perfectly free to disagree...but since you posted it in a debate forum, you really ought to disagree with reasoned argument rather than histrionics - "fighting with everything I post" indeed!

And as for considering the "new information", as far as I can tell, you haven't posted anything that could not have been written by an averagely intelligent person with a modicum of education 1000 years ago...there's nothing new about positing "God" as the "source of being"...that idea is as old as the hills.

 

[PureX]

What you did was post an argument in a debate forum...I rejected your argument because - for the reasons I have clearly detailed previously, your argument does not (in my opinion) meet the requirements of sound logical argumentation...I did not present any "preconceived biases" I presented logical arguments with which you are perfectly free to disagree...but since you posted it in a debate forum, you really ought to disagree with reasoned argument rather than histrionics - "fighting with everything I post" indeed!

You objected based on nothing (no one knows). I had to assume bias.

And as for considering the "new information", as far as I can tell, you haven't posted anything that could not have been written by an averagely intelligent person with a modicum of education 1000 years ago...there's nothing new about positing "God" as the "source of being"...that idea is as old as the hills.

Again, I am not responsible for what you can't or won't understand. And I'm not here to convince you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's why I decided to stop "looking" there [outside of time and space]...because if that's where god (if there is one) is, we'll never find "him".

Correct. That is the description of something that doesn't exist. Real objects and processes can be found in some place at some time and can affect or be affected and be affected by other real thing, the collection of which we call reality or nature. When somebody tells that that their god exists outside of time and space, they are saying that it doesn't exist even if they are unaware of that or refuse to accept the idea that existence means persistence somewhere throughout a duration of time. Does their god allegedly think or act? If so, it does so in time. Both of those reflect change from before states to after states.

Having long ago waded through Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason, this discussion reminds me that without reference to actual factual data, all reason (Logic) can do is to make sure it builds sound logical structures. Any reasoning that is not rooted in empirical fact is an ungrounded flight of fancy.

Agreed. Pure reason like mathematics and logic itself are meaningless divorced from empiricism. If they are not being used to derive sound conclusions about physical reality (knowledge), they are useless.

we are programmed to seek. And we do that by imagining possibilities, and by surmising their validity via logical reasoning. And by testing their validity by 'acting as if'. It's who we are and what we do as dictated by the nature of existence, itself.

The trick is to not go beyond what the evidence justifies. The 'as if' test also requires empiric confirmation to be called knowledge. If one lives as if a god might exist to see if one manifests by doing that, as long as he is careful not to project his endogenous, internal mental states onto reality as if they are messages from something trying to contact him without empirical evidence that that is the case. Intuition ("it just feels right") isn't reliable.

If you would stop reading to fight, and read to understand, instead, you would be able to see things in a new way.

You say that a lot, but you have nothing to teach. You have no extra knowledge not available to every empiricist including atheistic empiricists. You assume that when your claims are rejected that it is because they aren't understood, and that is because people just aren't trying hard enough and therefore fail to see the truth of your opinions by the hundreds.

You don't seem to understand that many unbelievers have experience with faith, god beliefs, and religion, and are adept at interpreting evidence. What do you think that you can teach such a person?

You also don't seem to understand that a person who is comfortable without a god belief or a religion has no incentive to change that. There would be no benefit him to start believing in gods assuming that that were even possible for an experienced critical thinker and empiricist. He doesn't choose what he believes.

We have other means of inquiry besides science.

There is no other path to knowledge but empiricism, whether that be in a laboratory or observatory, or just going about daily life looking, listening, and testing to see what accomplishes desired outcomes. You can claim otherwise, but you can't back that claim up with evidence. How many times had I asked you to share one of your spiritual truths acquired nonempirically and you produced none before I quit asking you and changed over to telling you that you have nothing and that what you call spiritual truth isn't any kind of truth or fact or knowledge.

even religion that can probe in ways that science cannot.

Religion has nothing to teach the atheistic humanist. Nothing I call knowledge comes from any holy book or other religious source. Nothing at all. Not how the sun works. Not where to find a good Italian dinner. Not what Paris looks like. Not how to drive a car. Not how to play bridge or a musical instrument. Not how to be a good person. Not how to learn. Nothing.

If I were wrong, you could falsify that claim by producing a religious truth not available to empiricist, but you can't.

 

[PureX]

The trick is to not go beyond what the evidence justifies.

That may be your trick, but it's certainly not a requirement for a great many other humans. We live by taking risks and venturig into the unknown. We may not like doing it, but a lot of the time we have very little choice. What "the evidence justifies" is a very subjective criteria. Eve what we choose to consider as evidence is a very subjective criteria.

The 'as if' test also requires empiric confirmation to be called knowledge.

Again, this may be your criteria but it's clearly not universal. And what you accept as "confirmation" will vary wildly from what someone else might accept.

If one lives as if a god might exist to see if one manifests by doing that, as long as he is careful not to project his endogenous, internal mental states onto reality as if they are messages from something trying to contact him without empirical evidence that that is the case. Intuition ("it just feels right") isn't reliable.

Everyone projects their "endogenous, internal mental state" onto reality. In fact, it's what we are calling "reality". It's what reality is, for us.

You don't seem to understand that many unbelievers have experience with faith, god beliefs, and religion, and are adept at interpreting evidence. What do you think that you can teach such a person?

I can tell from the comments that many here have no understanding of religious practice beyond a very childish dogmatic catechism.

You also don't seem to understand that a person who is comfortable without a god belief or a religion has no incentive to change that.

That's fine, as I have no incentive to see them change.

There would be no benefit him to start believing in gods assuming that that were even possible for an experienced critical thinker and empiricist. He doesn't choose what he believes.

I agree. We humans tend to become intractable idiots when we start "believing in" things. And that's as true of all those who believe in atheism as it is for those who believe in gods. But at least the god-believers are beng honest about it.

There is no other path to knowledge but empiricism,

That's absurd, and sadly debilitating for those who are foolish enough to "believe in" it.

Religion has nothing to teach the atheistic humanist.

"Humanism" informs us all. Theist and atheist alike.

Nothing I call knowledge comes from any holy book or other religious source. Nothing at all.

Professing such willful ignorance does not impress me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That may be your trick, but it's certainly not a requirement for a great many other humans.

How well I know. Most people don't seem to be too interested in not holding false or unfalsifiable beliefs. Most are content or even compelled to hold unjustified belief.

what you accept as "confirmation" will vary wildly from what someone else might accept.

I'm not interested in what others call confirmation if it's not empiricism, or the application of valid reasoning to evidence to generate ideas that can be demonstrated to be correct. That's the academic method, and how scientific study and peer review proceed, and how courtroom trials are intended to proceed.

Words like correct, confirmed, fact, demonstrated, knowledge, and truth all are tied to empiricism or the terms are being misused.

All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. That's how we accumulate knowledge, and by no other means.

Either one agrees that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or he doesn't.

If he agrees, but disagrees with another critically thinking empiricist they have a means to decide the issue: dialectic. If this is not how his epistemology works - how he defines truth - then his contrary opinions are irrelevant, since they have no effect on anything and can be used for nothing. That's how I classify so-called spiritual truths including god beliefs and belief in supernaturalism.

I can tell from the comments that many here have no understanding of religious practice beyond a very childish dogmatic catechism.

You're quite fond of casting yourself in the role of knowing more and seeing further. Why should your opinions matter to me more than my own do? I use the method just described, and you're happy to stray off the empiricism reservation.

I agree. We humans tend to become intractable idiots when we start "believing in" things. And that's as true of all those who believe in atheism as it is for those who believe in gods.

Nobody believes in atheism, a idea you don't seem to be able to conceptualize, so there's no value in running it down again.

"Humanism" informs us all. Theist and atheist alike.

No. Christianity, for example, depends on faith over empiricism for truth and received morals over rational ethics for moral guidance.

That's absurd, and sadly debilitating for those who are foolish enough to "believe in" it.

That's your usual response. No counterargument, just dismissal and usually with an insult.

Professing such willful ignorance does not impress me.

Once again, it seems you have no rebuttal. You just wave ideas you don't like away.

Your opinions have no persuasive power without evidenced argument to justify them. Like I said, the trick is to not go beyond the evidence so as not to accumulate ideas that can't be used, demonstrated, or defended. That's what you done, and here you are expressing them to no benefit to anybody and at a cost to your ethos, a term from the theory of argument or rhetoric.

The term refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument (logos), such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to be a sound thinker, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with sound, impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, is he emotionally secure, and the like. If your audience doesn't rust your thinking, you might have trouble getting them to accept your insufficiently supported opinions as even provisionally correct when a trusted source would have been believed (tentatively).

Your public persona is that of a person meeting some need by adopting self-serving definitions for atheism, embracing faith-based ideas like they're factual or meaningful, and disparaging those who reject them for being to modify their standards for belief. You've been told all of this before, but either you cannot see it or don't care.

 

[siti]

You objected based on nothing (no one knows). I had to assume bias.

Again, I am not responsible for what you can't or won't understand. And I'm not here to convince you.

OK