The Limitations of Atheism.
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Yeah Bowswer, must this be a repeat of the agonizing "square circle" argument? Give it up already!
Although I must say that this has all been terribly fascinating, can we look forward to something more compelling about this debate than the definition of an atheist?
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Although I must say that this has all been terribly fascinating, can we look forward to something more compelling about this debate than the definition of an atheist?
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Emerald,
"Yeah Bowswer, must this be a repeat of the agonizing "square circle" argument? Give it up already!"
This thread is very much the "square circle" argument; however, I see here a change in roles. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">
"Although I must say that this has all been terribly fascinating, can we look forward to something more compelling about this debate than the definition of an atheist?"
I was ready to start, but someone challenged the legitimate definition of "atheism." How can I debate about the failures of atheism if we can't agree on the definition? To be honest, if they hadn't started breaking the word down into it's affixes, I wouldn't have bothered me so much. I'm thankful for the initial challenge to the definition, though. It has made me larger. It hasn't been a total waste of effort. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif">
I am bored with this thread. I will let it die.
<hr>
Cris,
"From Logic: Quantities can be: All, Some, or None.
Atheism - "The doctrine that there is no God"
The presence of 'some' doesn't imply 'all'"
------------------
It's all very large.
"Yeah Bowswer, must this be a repeat of the agonizing "square circle" argument? Give it up already!"
This thread is very much the "square circle" argument; however, I see here a change in roles. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">
"Although I must say that this has all been terribly fascinating, can we look forward to something more compelling about this debate than the definition of an atheist?"
I was ready to start, but someone challenged the legitimate definition of "atheism." How can I debate about the failures of atheism if we can't agree on the definition? To be honest, if they hadn't started breaking the word down into it's affixes, I wouldn't have bothered me so much. I'm thankful for the initial challenge to the definition, though. It has made me larger. It hasn't been a total waste of effort. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif">
I am bored with this thread. I will let it die.
<hr>
Cris,
"From Logic: Quantities can be: All, Some, or None.
Atheism - "The doctrine that there is no God"
The presence of 'some' doesn't imply 'all'"
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser,
You must be tired, your last claim to logic didn't quite make it (objects of logic must be indisputable facts), but what the hell!
I thank you though for forcing me to see the controversy surrounding the prefixes and suffixes of the word atheism. I have learnt something.
I suspect that we could find other words whoose strict definitions have not strictly been adherred to but that have adopted accepted meanings by their practitioners. I'd like to quote some references as evidence but that will take some time and I suspect this thread is about to die anyway.
Take care
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 07, 2000).]
You must be tired, your last claim to logic didn't quite make it (objects of logic must be indisputable facts), but what the hell!
I thank you though for forcing me to see the controversy surrounding the prefixes and suffixes of the word atheism. I have learnt something.
I suspect that we could find other words whoose strict definitions have not strictly been adherred to but that have adopted accepted meanings by their practitioners. I'd like to quote some references as evidence but that will take some time and I suspect this thread is about to die anyway.
Take care
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 07, 2000).]
Cris--
A short list of subjective terms we might argue in the same way we've seen atheism approached in this thread:
* Liberal
* Conservative
* Liberty
* God
* Jesus
* "Holy Spirit"
* Christian (ask the Catholics, SDA's, SBC, and a few other churches and their adherents)
* Logic (even though it has a consistent dictionary, general academic, encyclopaedic, and historical definition).
* Perfect (you'd think the word would be easy; however, some theists think of God as perfect despite the fact that two of those theists might have opposing ideas about the perfection in question).
I'll stop now, since the list gets mighty long.
Here's a dictionary definition for everyone to enjoy:
This is from http://www.m-w.com ; that is, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary.
1) derived from Jesus
2) based on Bible as sacred scripture
3) and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.
Since we're on the importance of the dictionary definitions, I should mention that I wonder where the representatives of Christianity are at Exoscience? I've been posting here for well over a year, and I've seen no representatives of Christianity meeting all three of the above-referenced conditions.
Okay, it's three cents, today ....
thanx all,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
A short list of subjective terms we might argue in the same way we've seen atheism approached in this thread:
* Liberal
* Conservative
* Liberty
* God
* Jesus
* "Holy Spirit"
* Christian (ask the Catholics, SDA's, SBC, and a few other churches and their adherents)
* Logic (even though it has a consistent dictionary, general academic, encyclopaedic, and historical definition).
* Perfect (you'd think the word would be easy; however, some theists think of God as perfect despite the fact that two of those theists might have opposing ideas about the perfection in question).
I'll stop now, since the list gets mighty long.
Here's a dictionary definition for everyone to enjoy:
This is from http://www.m-w.com ; that is, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary.
1) derived from Jesus
2) based on Bible as sacred scripture
3) and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.
Since we're on the importance of the dictionary definitions, I should mention that I wonder where the representatives of Christianity are at Exoscience? I've been posting here for well over a year, and I've seen no representatives of Christianity meeting all three of the above-referenced conditions.
Okay, it's three cents, today ....
thanx all,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Okay, I stand corrected. I have seen Christianity represented on this board, according to definition 3 of the Merriam-Webster citation above. I referenced Christendom 2 via a link on the m-w.com page, and got this definition:
Thus, I stand corrected; according to definition 2 above, I have seen many representatives of Christianity. Technically, I'm one of 'em. How's that for a dictionary definition?
take care,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Thus, I stand corrected; according to definition 2 above, I have seen many representatives of Christianity. Technically, I'm one of 'em
. How's that for a dictionary definition?take care,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Zealots. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Believe what you desire. I've given this an honest look, and, with the initial approach offered in this thread. I've come to the conclusion that A(no)-the(god)-ism(belief in) means "belief in no god."
Check it out, cris:
SYLLABICATION: –ism
SUFFIX : 1. Action; process; practice: “terrorism.” 2. a. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: “atheism.”[/b] b. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: “racism.”
ETYMOLOGY: Old French, from Latin -ismus, from Greek -ismos, n. suffix
I suppose this is why you were focusing on the "a"(no)prefix, and then attaching it to "theism"(belief in God). Maybe you know I'm right?
<hr>
Quote:
Take: a-, an- (Greek: no, absence of, without, lack of, not; used as a prefix).
And
Theism: Belief in a god or gods.
Put them together: A-theism = Absence of belief in a god or gods.
<hr>
I almost bought into that omnidefinition, but I gave it a better look. I learnt something in the process, and for that I am thankful.
An athiest believes there is no god.
<hr>
Tiassa,
1) derived from Jesus
2) based on Bible as sacred scripture
3) and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.
"I've been posting here for well over a year, and I've seen no representatives of Christianity meeting all three of the above-referenced conditions."
There isn't much surprise here, Tiassa. This is more of an antichrist message board. Find a message board that is dominated by Christians. You might find, at the very least, a good argument on their part. You are among friends here.
<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon2.gif">
------------------
It's all very large.
[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited December 08, 2000).]
Check it out, cris:
SYLLABICATION: –ism
SUFFIX : 1. Action; process; practice: “terrorism.” 2. a. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: “atheism.”[/b] b. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: “racism.”
ETYMOLOGY: Old French, from Latin -ismus, from Greek -ismos, n. suffix
I suppose this is why you were focusing on the "a"(no)prefix, and then attaching it to "theism"(belief in God). Maybe you know I'm right?
<hr>
Quote:
Take: a-, an- (Greek: no, absence of, without, lack of, not; used as a prefix).
And
Theism: Belief in a god or gods.
Put them together: A-theism = Absence of belief in a god or gods.
<hr>
I almost bought into that omnidefinition, but I gave it a better look. I learnt something in the process, and for that I am thankful.
An athiest believes there is no god.
<hr>
Tiassa,
1) derived from Jesus
2) based on Bible as sacred scripture
3) and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.
"I've been posting here for well over a year, and I've seen no representatives of Christianity meeting all three of the above-referenced conditions."
There isn't much surprise here, Tiassa. This is more of an antichrist message board. Find a message board that is dominated by Christians. You might find, at the very least, a good argument on their part. You are among friends here.
<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon2.gif">
------------------
It's all very large.
[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited December 08, 2000).]
Ah, Bowser ... I don't think that any atheist I've ever met truly has any problem with Jesus himself. I'd say the big problem, for atheists, as with many theists who watch the christian phenomenon from afar, is the people who believe Jesus is Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and so forth.
And I have tried christian-dominated message boards before. Such arguments as those found there do more to diminish my idea of the legitimacy of christianity than anything else.
The same kind of digressions occur at christian boards, but it's even funnier to watch.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Hi Bowser,
There are in fact many aspects and forms of atheism. If this is recognized then we will be able to see why we are having problems. I believe there is not a single definition that adequately describes all aspects of the subject. I think I can show that you are correct in your definition and that I am correct as well. We are simply arguing from opposing extremes and not recognizing the other’s point of view.
Let me deal with a minor point first. The prefix ‘a’ is effectively a negation, e.g. no, against, without, absence of, etc. I think we agree on that. But I don’t think we agree on the object to which ‘a’ is being prefixed. One view is that the object is ‘belief’ so that we obtain ‘no belief’ or ‘absence of belief’ or ‘without belief’. The other view is that the object is ‘god, or existence of god’, which results in ‘no god’ or ‘no god exists’. I think the term atheism refers to the former definition, but as you will see in a moment that both claims may be moot.
I believe that contained within the many forms of atheism both claims are true. You must accept firstly that practicing atheists and atheist organizations assert that ‘basic’ atheism is an absence of belief in a god or gods. From there we can proceed to the other forms of atheism where the assertions are quite different in that there are those atheists who positively state that ‘there is no god’. This is not the case of, simply not willing to believe in a god, but is a definite positive belief that a god does not exist.
These two forms of atheism are recognized and are sometimes referred to a weak atheism and strong atheism. It is important to realize that they represent two very different positions. The weak atheist may very well, and strongly, disagree with the strong atheist on the grounds that the strong atheist cannot prove or give evidence for his belief and is therefore as irrational as theists in that they also cannot claim evidence or proofs for the their beliefs.
The strong atheist is willing to say ‘I believe that a god does not exist’. It is important to note that the claim is usually directed at a specific god. For example I have claimed that the Christian God cannot exist because the Christian specifications for God contain paradoxical and conflicting properties making it impossible for such a god to exist. In this stance I could be described as a strong atheist.
In this latter case we could say that this form of atheism is following a doctrine that there is no God, in which case your opening statements would apply and you would be correct. However, you must accept that most atheists do not share this point of view and simply do not believe that there are gods, which is different from a positive belief in a given assertion.
Note that the strong atheist is the opposite of the theist. The theist positively says a god does exist, and the strong atheist positively says a god does not exist. The weak atheist says I don’t know if a god exists or not, please provide proof.
Our problem has been one of trying to make a single definition fit two different philosophical positions. And the term atheism as it stands is not adequate for the job.
With greatest respect.
Cris
There are in fact many aspects and forms of atheism. If this is recognized then we will be able to see why we are having problems. I believe there is not a single definition that adequately describes all aspects of the subject. I think I can show that you are correct in your definition and that I am correct as well. We are simply arguing from opposing extremes and not recognizing the other’s point of view.
Let me deal with a minor point first. The prefix ‘a’ is effectively a negation, e.g. no, against, without, absence of, etc. I think we agree on that. But I don’t think we agree on the object to which ‘a’ is being prefixed. One view is that the object is ‘belief’ so that we obtain ‘no belief’ or ‘absence of belief’ or ‘without belief’. The other view is that the object is ‘god, or existence of god’, which results in ‘no god’ or ‘no god exists’. I think the term atheism refers to the former definition, but as you will see in a moment that both claims may be moot.
I believe that contained within the many forms of atheism both claims are true. You must accept firstly that practicing atheists and atheist organizations assert that ‘basic’ atheism is an absence of belief in a god or gods. From there we can proceed to the other forms of atheism where the assertions are quite different in that there are those atheists who positively state that ‘there is no god’. This is not the case of, simply not willing to believe in a god, but is a definite positive belief that a god does not exist.
These two forms of atheism are recognized and are sometimes referred to a weak atheism and strong atheism. It is important to realize that they represent two very different positions. The weak atheist may very well, and strongly, disagree with the strong atheist on the grounds that the strong atheist cannot prove or give evidence for his belief and is therefore as irrational as theists in that they also cannot claim evidence or proofs for the their beliefs.
The strong atheist is willing to say ‘I believe that a god does not exist’. It is important to note that the claim is usually directed at a specific god. For example I have claimed that the Christian God cannot exist because the Christian specifications for God contain paradoxical and conflicting properties making it impossible for such a god to exist. In this stance I could be described as a strong atheist.
In this latter case we could say that this form of atheism is following a doctrine that there is no God, in which case your opening statements would apply and you would be correct. However, you must accept that most atheists do not share this point of view and simply do not believe that there are gods, which is different from a positive belief in a given assertion.
Note that the strong atheist is the opposite of the theist. The theist positively says a god does exist, and the strong atheist positively says a god does not exist. The weak atheist says I don’t know if a god exists or not, please provide proof.
Our problem has been one of trying to make a single definition fit two different philosophical positions. And the term atheism as it stands is not adequate for the job.
With greatest respect.
Cris
I tried to find a Christian discussion as picayune as this one, but couldn't come close - sorry.
However, I did find an example of the quality of discussion I was hoping for in this thread: <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=3767&discussionID=2894">What is Atheism?</a>
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
However, I did find an example of the quality of discussion I was hoping for in this thread: <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=3767&discussionID=2894">What is Atheism?</a>
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
OmniRev. Doohickey Jones
Registered Member
Sorry to jump in so late here...
So, are you trying to say that christianity is superior 'cause it has all them neat myths?
(ed.- Wow, didn't notice there are three whole pages already...forget I asked, I'll go read everything now)
(re-ed.- Okay, read 'em now. I see that everything got sidetracked on the definition of atheism. If you still feel like taking up the initial assertion, shall we give it a whirl? My definition of atheism is the 'lack of belief' one, but I dont see how working with your 'disbelief' definition will affect anything.)
------------------
The OmniReverend Doohickey Jones
Official Representitive for All Gods, Goddesses, Incorpreal Beings, Small Woodland Animals With Big Pointy Teeth, my dead dog Sparky and Phil the Homeless Guy Under the Pier (not representing Grunapulax the Space Goat who Eats the Sun and the Moon)
[This message has been edited by OmniRev. Doohickey Jones (edited December 11, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by OmniRev. Doohickey Jones (edited December 11, 2000).]
DJ,
"I see that everything got sidetracked on the definition of atheism. If you still feel like taking up the initial assertion, shall we give it a whirl? My definition of atheism is the 'lack of belief' one, but I dont see how working with your 'disbelief' definition will affect anything.)"
I will give you an argument later. Christmas has called on my time. I will get back to this topic soon. As for the definition, it was a worthy diversion.
------------------
It's all very large.
"I see that everything got sidetracked on the definition of atheism. If you still feel like taking up the initial assertion, shall we give it a whirl? My definition of atheism is the 'lack of belief' one, but I dont see how working with your 'disbelief' definition will affect anything.)"
I will give you an argument later. Christmas has called on my time. I will get back to this topic soon. As for the definition, it was a worthy diversion.
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser--
A while back someone spammed the board with a link to Metacrock's EZBoard for something-or-other. Anyway, I don't have the address offhand (I'll search the topic list when I have time). But that board is heavily censored; the moderator doesn't like people to argue like we do here, doesn't like tempers raised, and there seems to be a standing assumption with most of the posters that certain Christian dogmatic points are true. Hence, posters stand on one side or the other, based on similar prejudices as have tied us down here, except that they all exist within the Christian conscience, as such.
Beyond that, try listening to individual Christians in your own life. I know Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists who will close their ears to Catholocism the same way theists have closed their ears to atheism.
Take a look at conservative religious conventions: Quakers don't dance, they rhythm. However, I've never met a Quaker who will go out of his or her way to condemn me for dancing. Yet I have met a member of the SBC that would, and has. And it's even funnier when it's Christians fighting about it. If you've never heard a Baptist say a Catholic isn't Christian, you're not paying any attention at all, because I never had to look that far; my local Trinity-network station was all I needed.
Once, and I admit I was probably debating with Lori at the time, I made a point about how people view Jesus and religion and salvation. Something like the following:
* Bowser, travel just a ways north to the Clark County, Washington, fairgrounds for the Jesus Northwest circus. You don't even have to poke fun at some of the dumb things people say about Jesus. Simply wander by a Christian and raise your hand and greet them, "Praise Jesus!" And they will say "Praise his name!" or something similar in response. Now, Are you talking about the same Jesus?
I think it was GrimJester who recently noted the number of gang-bangers wearing crosses (I think we were debating Affirmative Action). Simply ... Is the Jesus you praise the same one that he praises?
Imagine the gangbanger wearing a cross around his neck while shooting up the front of someone's house.
Imagine my favorite example, Joe the World-Church Nazi Christian. You know, the church whose leader comforts his flock by explaining that it is not a disgrace to die next to gooks and Kikes if you die while killing them?
When two atheistic explorers disagree, they're not talking in terms of eternal torture in fire. The comfort of community, though, often seems so important, that people get a charge out of agreeing to praise Jesus, even if the Jesus they're praising is one who wants dead Kikes and Gooks.
Explorations ... when two people who both believe in Jesus think the other's going to Hell because that other person doesn't believe in Jesus "the right way", well, I think they're both going to Hell, and I resent the fact that they'll ask the rest of us to follow them the whole way.
When Oregon Catholics declared that it was not a properly-Christian attitude to support Lon Mabon and the OCA in 1992's Measure 9, were the Catholics and Lon just "exploring"?
You're so forgiving to certain people, Bowser, and it gives the appearance of being simply because they're the majority.
Even the simplest observations of human conduct, and you feel the need to justify, forgive, and explain. Come on, man ... when Inquisitors burned people for their Articles of Christian faith ... when Christians hung or crushed Christians in a Massachusetts colonial property-fight ... Yeah, they were just "exploring".
Cracks me up, kind Bowser
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
A while back someone spammed the board with a link to Metacrock's EZBoard for something-or-other. Anyway, I don't have the address offhand (I'll search the topic list when I have time). But that board is heavily censored; the moderator doesn't like people to argue like we do here, doesn't like tempers raised, and there seems to be a standing assumption with most of the posters that certain Christian dogmatic points are true. Hence, posters stand on one side or the other, based on similar prejudices as have tied us down here, except that they all exist within the Christian conscience, as such.
Beyond that, try listening to individual Christians in your own life. I know Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists who will close their ears to Catholocism the same way theists have closed their ears to atheism.
Take a look at conservative religious conventions: Quakers don't dance, they rhythm. However, I've never met a Quaker who will go out of his or her way to condemn me for dancing. Yet I have met a member of the SBC that would, and has. And it's even funnier when it's Christians fighting about it. If you've never heard a Baptist say a Catholic isn't Christian, you're not paying any attention at all, because I never had to look that far; my local Trinity-network station was all I needed.
Once, and I admit I was probably debating with Lori at the time, I made a point about how people view Jesus and religion and salvation. Something like the following:
* Bowser, travel just a ways north to the Clark County, Washington, fairgrounds for the Jesus Northwest circus. You don't even have to poke fun at some of the dumb things people say about Jesus. Simply wander by a Christian and raise your hand and greet them, "Praise Jesus!" And they will say "Praise his name!" or something similar in response. Now, Are you talking about the same Jesus?
I think it was GrimJester who recently noted the number of gang-bangers wearing crosses (I think we were debating Affirmative Action). Simply ... Is the Jesus you praise the same one that he praises?
Imagine the gangbanger wearing a cross around his neck while shooting up the front of someone's house.
Imagine my favorite example, Joe the World-Church Nazi Christian. You know, the church whose leader comforts his flock by explaining that it is not a disgrace to die next to gooks and Kikes if you die while killing them?
When two atheistic explorers disagree, they're not talking in terms of eternal torture in fire. The comfort of community, though, often seems so important, that people get a charge out of agreeing to praise Jesus, even if the Jesus they're praising is one who wants dead Kikes and Gooks.
Explorations ... when two people who both believe in Jesus think the other's going to Hell because that other person doesn't believe in Jesus "the right way", well, I think they're both going to Hell, and I resent the fact that they'll ask the rest of us to follow them the whole way.
When Oregon Catholics declared that it was not a properly-Christian attitude to support Lon Mabon and the OCA in 1992's Measure 9, were the Catholics and Lon just "exploring"?
You're so forgiving to certain people, Bowser, and it gives the appearance of being simply because they're the majority.
Even the simplest observations of human conduct, and you feel the need to justify, forgive, and explain. Come on, man ... when Inquisitors burned people for their Articles of Christian faith ... when Christians hung or crushed Christians in a Massachusetts colonial property-fight ... Yeah, they were just "exploring".
Cracks me up, kind Bowser
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Tiassa,
"...try listening to individual Christians in your own life. I know Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists who will close their ears to Catholocism..."
I have been exposed to diversity.<img src ="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"> Dispite their lack of harmony, there is a common note from which they play. I also hear familiar scales in other religions.
"...theists have closed their ears to atheism."
Closed ears...no. An atheist offers nothing which is not readily available for everyone--the physical world is witnessed by all. Does life's experience stop there?
My view, Tiassa, is that all things are products of reality--something cannot be created from nothing. Our art and our science and our imagination are mere mirrors of our environment. All things are lived within...?
With that in mind, all religion has foundation in physical truth. It could not exist in this experience without actuality.
That's my nickle...
BTW: Ice is forming on the trees and bushes. It looks like Portland will see an ice storm tonight.
------------------
It's all very large.
"...try listening to individual Christians in your own life. I know Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists who will close their ears to Catholocism..."
I have been exposed to diversity.<img src ="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"> Dispite their lack of harmony, there is a common note from which they play. I also hear familiar scales in other religions.
"...theists have closed their ears to atheism."
Closed ears...no. An atheist offers nothing which is not readily available for everyone--the physical world is witnessed by all. Does life's experience stop there?
My view, Tiassa, is that all things are products of reality--something cannot be created from nothing. Our art and our science and our imagination are mere mirrors of our environment. All things are lived within...?
With that in mind, all religion has foundation in physical truth. It could not exist in this experience without actuality.
That's my nickle...
BTW: Ice is forming on the trees and bushes. It looks like Portland will see an ice storm tonight.
------------------
It's all very large.
synaesthesia
Registered Senior Member
You are right in saying that atheism unto itself doesn't offer much. (This is true for both your definition of atheism and my own.)
A good analogy: If I believe in healing crystals, then I am offered a font of emotional support from other believers and a placebo effect from my own hope. If I don't believe in healing crystals, that absence of belief doesn't confer, *unto itself*, any real benefit. The empirical reasons that I may have, however, for not believing in healing crystals may be of use. The development of modern medicine is such an example.
One belief or absence of a belief isn't the limit of one's world view. If I fail to believe in God that does not mean that I need cling spasmodically to an (incontestably) outdated mechanistic world view.
"I have been exposed to diversity. Despite their lack of harmony, there is a common note from which they play. I also hear familiar scales in other religions."
Though I, as a rule, disagree with you I agree that exposure to diversity is a very important aspect of understanding religion. Yes, there will be common notes, appeals to hope, to the fundamental goodness of our world. These commonalities, however, are just as easily explained by human nature as by the existence of a God. Indeed, their differences make more sense in the context that they are merely reflections of man himself.
"Closed ears...no. An atheist offers nothing which is not readily available for everyone--the physical world is witnessed by all. Does life's experience stop there?"
I think she was referring to philosophical atheism. The possibility that our vast and often frightening universe is not overseen by a benevolent supernatural entity. Yes, many people have shut themselves off from this possibility. I have been there. (This, of course, doesn't unto itself lend any more credence to atheism then ex-atheists christians do to christianity. What I'm trying to say is that I understand where many theists are coming from.)
"My view, Tiassa, is that all things are products of reality--something cannot be created from nothing. Our art and our science and our imagination are mere mirrors of our environment. All things are lived within...? With that in mind, all religion has foundation in physical truth. It could not exist in this experience without actuality."
That's a rather ambiguous statement. It could mean that religion has is foundation in truth in that social institutions such as religion can be beneficial. Truth in that the idea of God is based in human ideals. (There is extensive evidence for this in the bible.) It says nothing to the existence or nature of an actual nominal world or beings which may exist therein.
I agree that religion is a reflection of our experience. I do not agree that religion necessarily indicates anything more then a desire for supernatural experience.
Regards,
Synaesthesia
A good analogy: If I believe in healing crystals, then I am offered a font of emotional support from other believers and a placebo effect from my own hope. If I don't believe in healing crystals, that absence of belief doesn't confer, *unto itself*, any real benefit. The empirical reasons that I may have, however, for not believing in healing crystals may be of use. The development of modern medicine is such an example.
One belief or absence of a belief isn't the limit of one's world view. If I fail to believe in God that does not mean that I need cling spasmodically to an (incontestably) outdated mechanistic world view.
"I have been exposed to diversity. Despite their lack of harmony, there is a common note from which they play. I also hear familiar scales in other religions."
Though I, as a rule, disagree with you
I agree that exposure to diversity is a very important aspect of understanding religion. Yes, there will be common notes, appeals to hope, to the fundamental goodness of our world. These commonalities, however, are just as easily explained by human nature as by the existence of a God. Indeed, their differences make more sense in the context that they are merely reflections of man himself."Closed ears...no. An atheist offers nothing which is not readily available for everyone--the physical world is witnessed by all. Does life's experience stop there?"
I think she was referring to philosophical atheism. The possibility that our vast and often frightening universe is not overseen by a benevolent supernatural entity. Yes, many people have shut themselves off from this possibility. I have been there. (This, of course, doesn't unto itself lend any more credence to atheism then ex-atheists christians do to christianity. What I'm trying to say is that I understand where many theists are coming from.)
"My view, Tiassa, is that all things are products of reality--something cannot be created from nothing. Our art and our science and our imagination are mere mirrors of our environment. All things are lived within...? With that in mind, all religion has foundation in physical truth. It could not exist in this experience without actuality."
That's a rather ambiguous statement. It could mean that religion has is foundation in truth in that social institutions such as religion can be beneficial. Truth in that the idea of God is based in human ideals. (There is extensive evidence for this in the bible.) It says nothing to the existence or nature of an actual nominal world or beings which may exist therein.
I agree that religion is a reflection of our experience. I do not agree that religion necessarily indicates anything more then a desire for supernatural experience.
Regards,
Synaesthesia
Bowser--
I have a joke for you: What did Torquemada say before he set his first witch aflame?
"That's one small step for humankind, one giant leap for human diversity."
Actually, though, that's an important point. After all, Stalin was just "Exploring his feelings" toward his fellow human beings; aren't you the one who trumps the Glorious Atheist Revolution of 1918, which extracted the persecuted Russians from WWI?
Despite the lack of theistic harmony, one thing is certainly common, especially in American (Western) theism: Dominion. But you are correct. However, can we agree that the Universe, as to any empirical standard we acknowledge, exists? Now, all of that diversity which you've noticed has to do with the idea that what exists must meet a preconceived standard. Thus:
Well, if what atheism offers is already available to everyone, what does that say about the non-atheists? That they believe otherwise because they're bored? What does theism give that can be demonstrated? Warm fuzzies? Sure, so can atheism. That theists find a sense of community in the myth of Jesus called Christ is as much a testament to the power of theism as the ability of human beings to find a sense of community in any common identity. Unless one chooses to write a special standard of belief for theism that we generally don't see applied outside of god-related issues, there is nothing that theism gives that life doesn't already offer: people are perfectly willing, it seems, to delude themselves without God's help. Capitalists only need a Holy Bible because capitalism wouldn't have come about without Protestant Christianity (which sentiment is derived from Max Weber). Otherwise, capitalism is a nonreligious delusion that, in America, is actually stronger than religion.
It isn't what you say, Bowser, but that you seem to think it only applies where you want it to.
If I look at an empty jar and say there's nothing in it, and there's nothing in it, nothing changes. If you look at a jar and say that God is inside the jar, I can't see any reason to force you not to believe that. But now imagine you pass a law that forces us all to respect The Jar, because of its divinity. Those people who don't believe in The Jar know it's bad to break The Jar because it gets glass on the floor and you cut your feet trying to clean it up. Those people who passed The Jar Law say it's a sin to break The Jar because God's inside it, and anyone who thinks it isn't a sin to break The Jar is an Enemy of the Jar, or an Anti-Jar.
And I think that's what God's all about in American theism ... the ability to hold others in dominion. Pick a few of the issues ... do not "community standards" often make the case for right and wrong? An example, that has much to do with propriety, but nothing to do with it's own reason: When I was in high school, big bass was getting very popular in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington. Tacoma passed a law saying that if a cop could hear your car stereo 50 feet away, you were Disturbing the Peace. These laws are, apparently, constitutional. However, where a McDonald's owner might play loud, crappy music, to allegedly drive away drug dealers, I can hear that 50 feet away, and it's not against the law. Was the original community standard of the law something about peace and quiet, or that enough people didn't like rap music? Why weren't men stripped to sexual impropriety, whipped, and carted from town to town in the snow for disagreeing with their preachers? How about the community standard of respecting the police? In Los Angeles, New York, and other cities, there is little if any reason to respect the police. In Seattle, our police department considers the constituency to exist for the benefit of its authority: the cops aren't here to protect us, we exist to obey them.
That fundamental lack of consistency is what I accuse theism of. It's what happens when you imagine reality to be different than it is for no better reason than to feel better about oneself.
One shouldn't break The Jar because one chooses to protect one's self and neighbors. One should not endanger one's neighbors on behalf of The Jar.
Unless, of course, one exists merely to impress The Jar.
And, maybe, that person can actually become the Whiskey in The Jar.
* ...all things are products of reality ... Yes ... God is a product derived by our imperfect selves from our imperfect view of reality. I love what the Goddess can teach me, but that hardly means I expect her to say, "Eat me" (in the eucharistic sense).
* ...our art and our science and our imagination ... Bowser, do you really think that the average theist around you would hold the conception they do of the ineffable mysteries they experience if they had not been taught to do so? Do you really think that the way in which a theist born in the latter-20th century is taught to experience God accurately reflects the original message which, if I recall, needs no change? Would Christianity see God as it American Christians do without the bowdlerizing butchery of Nicaea? Ray Bradbury never needs to mention Jesus, and he can teach me more about the ineffable than I ever got from the Bible. Are you assuming that every artist, every scientist, and every imagining soul has determined that it is God from which they derive? It's well okay to interpret a piece of art according to your own prejudices, standards, and other criteria, but I would dare you to tell any artist about that from which they draw their inspiration. In order for this part of your phrase to be true, you must know exactly what any artist, from Picasso on down to li'l ol' me, calls inspiration. And that is perhaps one of the truest statements I can ever lay down at Exosci: You cannot do that.
* ...foundation in physical truth... In other words, the religion was designed to describe a physical reality that could not be described. At it's most primal, I agree. However, what physical reality is described by God's punishment of Onan (Genesis 38.1-10)?
* It could not exist in this experience without actuality.
Religion, indeed, cannot exist in the human experience without having an actual source to derive from. However, what is that source? Is it, perhaps, the result of being unable to catalog and record enough data over time as to draw certain conclusions? For if earlier humans could catalog and record data, they would have figured out what a volcano was and thus skipped the whole bit with the virgins. (Those folks definitely were not atheists.) Or, perhaps, that lightning isn't a God, or that the sun is a star. Perhaps, if the actuality was what we respected, we would not have had to learn stupid things a second time: that the world was round? Invasive surgery? Electrical storage (batteries)? The big fault there is that the actuality is no longer the determining factor but the dependent clause. The actual state of things is a result of the assumption, instead of the other way around.
Here is My Jar. I assert that there is only air, and perhaps some dust and water vapor, inside. There is "No God" inside The Jar.
Please show me how I am wrong without asking me to assume something that is contrary to observation. If I must use special means to observe that something (such as a microscope for a bacterium), please explain how it works or, at least, what it is. Before we knew what "pus" was, it was called "humour".
(And enough with the winter weather ... sure, some snow would be nice, but I'm in a bad mood about it for the next couple of days due to personal reasons that have to do with sitting on the runway in Spokane having the plane de-iced for the second time in fifteen minutes.)
It might be that the physical "truth" of religion is the human experience. Religion cannot exist without religious folk.
Of course, that means football's a constitutionally protected religion, and we all know that's six points' worth of horsepucky.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
I have a joke for you: What did Torquemada say before he set his first witch aflame?
"That's one small step for humankind, one giant leap for human diversity."
Actually, though, that's an important point. After all, Stalin was just "Exploring his feelings" toward his fellow human beings; aren't you the one who trumps the Glorious Atheist Revolution of 1918, which extracted the persecuted Russians from WWI?
Despite the lack of theistic harmony, one thing is certainly common, especially in American (Western) theism: Dominion. But you are correct. However, can we agree that the Universe, as to any empirical standard we acknowledge, exists? Now, all of that diversity which you've noticed has to do with the idea that what exists must meet a preconceived standard. Thus:
Well, if what atheism offers is already available to everyone, what does that say about the non-atheists? That they believe otherwise because they're bored? What does theism give that can be demonstrated? Warm fuzzies? Sure, so can atheism. That theists find a sense of community in the myth of Jesus called Christ is as much a testament to the power of theism as the ability of human beings to find a sense of community in any common identity. Unless one chooses to write a special standard of belief for theism that we generally don't see applied outside of god-related issues, there is nothing that theism gives that life doesn't already offer: people are perfectly willing, it seems, to delude themselves without God's help. Capitalists only need a Holy Bible because capitalism wouldn't have come about without Protestant Christianity (which sentiment is derived from Max Weber). Otherwise, capitalism is a nonreligious delusion that, in America, is actually stronger than religion.
It isn't what you say, Bowser, but that you seem to think it only applies where you want it to.
If I look at an empty jar and say there's nothing in it, and there's nothing in it, nothing changes. If you look at a jar and say that God is inside the jar, I can't see any reason to force you not to believe that. But now imagine you pass a law that forces us all to respect The Jar, because of its divinity. Those people who don't believe in The Jar know it's bad to break The Jar because it gets glass on the floor and you cut your feet trying to clean it up. Those people who passed The Jar Law say it's a sin to break The Jar because God's inside it, and anyone who thinks it isn't a sin to break The Jar is an Enemy of the Jar, or an Anti-Jar.
And I think that's what God's all about in American theism ... the ability to hold others in dominion. Pick a few of the issues ... do not "community standards" often make the case for right and wrong? An example, that has much to do with propriety, but nothing to do with it's own reason: When I was in high school, big bass was getting very popular in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington. Tacoma passed a law saying that if a cop could hear your car stereo 50 feet away, you were Disturbing the Peace. These laws are, apparently, constitutional. However, where a McDonald's owner might play loud, crappy music, to allegedly drive away drug dealers, I can hear that 50 feet away, and it's not against the law. Was the original community standard of the law something about peace and quiet, or that enough people didn't like rap music? Why weren't men stripped to sexual impropriety, whipped, and carted from town to town in the snow for disagreeing with their preachers? How about the community standard of respecting the police? In Los Angeles, New York, and other cities, there is little if any reason to respect the police. In Seattle, our police department considers the constituency to exist for the benefit of its authority: the cops aren't here to protect us, we exist to obey them.
That fundamental lack of consistency is what I accuse theism of. It's what happens when you imagine reality to be different than it is for no better reason than to feel better about oneself.
One shouldn't break The Jar because one chooses to protect one's self and neighbors. One should not endanger one's neighbors on behalf of The Jar.
Unless, of course, one exists merely to impress The Jar.
And, maybe, that person can actually become the Whiskey in The Jar.
* ...all things are products of reality ... Yes ... God is a product derived by our imperfect selves from our imperfect view of reality. I love what the Goddess can teach me, but that hardly means I expect her to say, "Eat me" (in the eucharistic sense).
* ...our art and our science and our imagination ... Bowser, do you really think that the average theist around you would hold the conception they do of the ineffable mysteries they experience if they had not been taught to do so? Do you really think that the way in which a theist born in the latter-20th century is taught to experience God accurately reflects the original message which, if I recall, needs no change? Would Christianity see God as it American Christians do without the bowdlerizing butchery of Nicaea? Ray Bradbury never needs to mention Jesus, and he can teach me more about the ineffable than I ever got from the Bible. Are you assuming that every artist, every scientist, and every imagining soul has determined that it is God from which they derive? It's well okay to interpret a piece of art according to your own prejudices, standards, and other criteria, but I would dare you to tell any artist about that from which they draw their inspiration. In order for this part of your phrase to be true, you must know exactly what any artist, from Picasso on down to li'l ol' me, calls inspiration. And that is perhaps one of the truest statements I can ever lay down at Exosci: You cannot do that.
* ...foundation in physical truth... In other words, the religion was designed to describe a physical reality that could not be described. At it's most primal, I agree. However, what physical reality is described by God's punishment of Onan (Genesis 38.1-10)?
* It could not exist in this experience without actuality.
Religion, indeed, cannot exist in the human experience without having an actual source to derive from. However, what is that source? Is it, perhaps, the result of being unable to catalog and record enough data over time as to draw certain conclusions? For if earlier humans could catalog and record data, they would have figured out what a volcano was and thus skipped the whole bit with the virgins. (Those folks definitely were not atheists.) Or, perhaps, that lightning isn't a God, or that the sun is a star. Perhaps, if the actuality was what we respected, we would not have had to learn stupid things a second time: that the world was round? Invasive surgery? Electrical storage (batteries)? The big fault there is that the actuality is no longer the determining factor but the dependent clause. The actual state of things is a result of the assumption, instead of the other way around.
Here is My Jar. I assert that there is only air, and perhaps some dust and water vapor, inside. There is "No God" inside The Jar.
Please show me how I am wrong without asking me to assume something that is contrary to observation. If I must use special means to observe that something (such as a microscope for a bacterium), please explain how it works or, at least, what it is. Before we knew what "pus" was, it was called "humour".
(And enough with the winter weather ... sure, some snow would be nice, but I'm in a bad mood about it for the next couple of days due to personal reasons that have to do with sitting on the runway in Spokane having the plane de-iced for the second time in fifteen minutes.)
It might be that the physical "truth" of religion is the human experience. Religion cannot exist without religious folk.
Of course, that means football's a constitutionally protected religion, and we all know that's six points' worth of horsepucky.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot