There are a number of atheists on OLO who regularly deride those who express their belief in God or openly admit to being part of a religion. Often the comments are very strong and even vile. I've often wondered why an atheist should be so angry in their denial of the gods, the supernatural, and/or the Divine.

Admittedly it may be frustrating and possibility even aggravating living among 'the ignorant' who are also the majority. However the qualities of forgiveness and tolerance are not exclusive to the theists. Surely atheists also have the ability to show compassion, fairness, Love and understanding.

There are plenty of atheist websites with information and advice for atheists from an atheist perspective. What I have found in researching this post is that there is a wide variety of reasons for being atheist from the highly intellectual to simply just hating religion in general.

One comment that struck me as particularly insightful and sound advice was "Simply critiquing religion does not accomplish much and unfortunately, that is what occupies too much of the time of many atheists. The problem is, merely attacking religion will not necessarily cause any changes either in people's behaviour or in society. A better methodology is to ensure that such critiques take place within a general program of promoting reason.

Broad encouragement of the wider use of reason and logic in all areas of life does have a chance of creating changes for the better. Encouraging other people to get into a habit of being sceptical may eventually get them to approach their religious beliefs in a more critical manner, even if religion and theism are never actually discussed."

In a free, modern and democratic society every person has the absolute human right to follow any religion, any belief and any philosophy they choose. They have the right to proselytise, preach, educate and influence.

However, and this is VITALLY important, any person who disagrees with any religion, belief or philosophy has an EQUAL right to criticize it, complain about it, analyze it, oppose it, influence it and make revelations about it.

Without BOTH, a society is not free. To fiercely criticise religions is a good thing, and to fiercely criticize atheism is a good thing. That's precisely what freedom and democracy is all about; the free expression of views and opinions.

In the 'good old days' Christianity imposed itself upon the regions it influenced. It ruled with an iron fist of brutality. Islam was the same, and remains the same in various locations in the Middle East. Secular decency, secular democracy and secular freedom defeated Christianity, and it was slowly forced to change and reform. Islam in certain locations in the Middle East has still yet to fully undergo the same reforms, but it will happen more quickly than happened with Christianity. It took Christianity several hundred years, it will take Middle East Islam only about 100 years or so because of the modern communications age.

Long live the freedom to strongly be whatever you choose (subject to non violence), and long live the freedom to strongly criticize others for their choice (subject to non violence). It's all about freedom and democracy, and these 2 things have transformed mankind from what it used to be.

ConservativeHippie,

There are no excuses for vile comments, and I certainly agree with your last paragraph. To add to that, what we should be focused on is publically expressing enough rational thought to counter irrationality. Combatting irrationality is never a waste of time on a public forum. Even if we can’t reach the people we’re talking to, there may be fence-sitting onlookers that we can. By putting out there as many rational counter-arguments as possible to irrational claims, we can at least hope to make those who hold irrational beliefs feel too embarrassed to express them, even if we don’t change their beliefs. That in itself would be progress because irrational beliefs are less harmless when they’re not expressed.

I’ve been following OLO since 2004 and have even noticed a difference since the emergence of the “New Atheists” (such a stupid term). Just take a look at an archived OLO thread on religion back that far and see how many more crazy opinions were being expressed.

Yes, religion justifies good deeds too, but those who commit good deeds in the name of their religion would probably be doing so without it too. The only weakness atheism has (compared to religion) is that it is not enough of a reason in itself to band together for charitable purposes, and nor does it have the tax-free status, the guilt-laden past, or the philosophical burden of proof to make those who fit its descriptor feel the need to justify its existence in such ways, like religion does.

I’ve already answered a similar question at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151500. All I can add to that response is to say that when we believe things for bad reasons, we run the risk of believing other things for bad reasons, and none of us lives in a bubble - our beliefs inform our actions and our actions have consequences.

Forget holding hands in a circle and singing Kumbaya, just imagine how good the world would be if everyone simply strove to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few a false ones as they could.

Conservative hippie, I think you will find that OLO has several vile and nasty contributors who claim to believe in a god.
Some of them make the atheist contributors seem very tame indeed.

I wouldn't say I was an atheist, but more of a skeptic, as I don't believe any human can either prove or disprove any God.

However, I tend to treat others with respect for their beliefs, as long as they don't come across as thinking they are morally more advanced than others that don't share their beliefs. I realise that religious beliefs can be very beneficial to some people.

I dislike people who think they are better than others, that only their beliefs are right, or who try to force their views on others.
I especially dislike those who claim to follow a religious book or God , but spend all their time on OLO spewing hatred about other people or religions.

May May and Suseonline have raised a good point regarding the undue privilege religion still enjoys. Theists can belittle atheists all they like and no-one says a thing. Speak out against religious belief in a harsh manner, and watch out.

It’s actually insulting towards people who hold religious beliefs, and a patronizing way of treating them - as if the poor “darlings” are so precious that they need their “little” beliefs protected. Furthermore, it could be interpreted as assuming that their belittling of atheists is so commonplace that it need not warrant a mention since it’s merely expected - as if they were inherently that nasty.

Suseonline,

Atheism has nothing to do with proving anything. Atheism, broadly speaking, is simply the lack of belief in any deities:

http://tinyurl.com/mtu4jg2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

If you are sceptical of god claims, then you’re an atheist. Don’t be afraid to use the term. By being so, we only play into the hands of the religious who want others to believe that those who hold no belief are as certain and dogmatic as they are.

>> "In a free, modern and democratic society every person has the absolute human right to follow any religion, any belief and any philosophy they choose. They have the right to proselytise, preach, educate and influence.

However, and this is VITALLY important, any person who disagrees with any religion, belief or philosophy has an EQUAL right to criticize it, complain about it, analyze it, oppose it, influence it and make revelations about it." <<

No argument with the above, but just because one has the right doesn't mean they are obligated to exercise it. As the old adage advises - Discretion is the better part of valour.

Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. Being overly defensive and/or fiercely critical of people's views, opinions, philosophies tends to polarise and in turn cement their ideas. It goes both ways, the theists on a high horse can really get up the nose of the none theists.

It's a fine line between criticising, complaining, opposing and coming off as rude or aggressive, especially in print (e.g. capitals indicate yelling in emails); this is why trying to remain as rational as possible is more effective. Angry discussions are rarely rational and generally won't leave either party feeling more enlightened on the topic.

May May,

"In a free, modern and democratic society every person has the absolute human right to follow any religion, any belief and any philosophy they choose. They have the right to proselytise, preach, educate and influence."

Why on earth do you keep making statements, such as the above, as though it were fact when it is demonstrable wrong?

Dear May,

<<In a free, modern and democratic society every person has the absolute human right to follow any religion>>

"Free" and "Democratic" are a contradiction in terms.

By definition, 'democracy' means that a majority can dictate their way of life to minorities, including curbing their religious freedom.

Add "modern" to the mix and you get a scary situation where modernism is imposed on minorities who do not believe in it.

---

Dear Hippie,

<<Broad encouragement of the wider use of reason and logic in all areas of life does have a chance of creating changes for the better>>

You (and others) assume a monopoly of atheism over reason and logic. Nobody, however, past present or future, acts purely out of reason and logic, including the religious, the theist and the atheist. We simply accept different axioms on what "good" is, then proceed logically to their conclusion. Such axioms are called "values" and cannot be logically derived from nature or from any other external source as they have no objective existence.

A good definition of religion is "A way of life".

The Oxford dictionary tells us that religion is ..."The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:"

So, it follows that atheists don't believe in superhuman controlling powers.
I am definitely an atheist then!

As a nurse, I frequently get told I am an angel, so I must be a 'good' atheist. : )

I would define religion as a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some
sacred, supernatural realm.

Whatever our religious beliefs may be, we usually learn
them from other people through socialisation into a
particular faith (or through resocialisation if we convert
from one faith to another). The religious convictions
that anyone holds are influenced by the historical and
social context in which that person happens to live.

Someone born in ancient Rome would probably have
believed that Jupiter is father of the gods; at
any rate he or she would certainly not have been a
Southern Baptist or a Hindu.

Of course we're not passive prisoners of our upbringing,
but even people who decide to convert from one religion to
another or who decide not to follow any particular
religion almost inevitably select their view or new faith
from the unique range of options that their particular
culture happens to offer at a particular point in its
history.

There are a large number of religions, many of whose
members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and
that all others are misguided, superstitious, even wicked.
The same intolerance can also come from non-believers.

Religion is a universal social institution, it takes a
multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors,
totems, they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied
rituals, or solemn prayer. For many years it was widely felt
that as science progressively provided rational explanations
for the mysteries of the universe, religion would have
less and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But as I've stated previously on this forum -
there are still gaps in our understanding that science
can never fill. On the ultimate important questions -
of the meaning and purpose of life and the nature of morality.
Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordianry experience, and in this fundamental
sense religion is probably here to stay.

"Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny the possibility of some higher power in the universe, some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the boundaries of ordianry experience..."

If by this you mean few people would deny the possibility that we don't know everything, Foxy, I readily agree.

But - and as Christine Aguilera knows it is a big but - the consistant themes of theistic religions are their claims to knowledge and certainty of truths, not possibilities, beyond external testing or experience.

We could take a leaf from the physicists playbook and put the word 'dark' in front of things we don't fully know (think Dark Energy or Dark Matter) and ascribe all the supernatural and transcendental realms and gods as the Dark Force.

"...and in this fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay."

Dear Foxy,

<<I would define religion as a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some
sacred, supernatural realm.>>

This indeed is how religion is commonly viewed from a secular perspective.
No wonder that without the actual religious experience, what is left is to watch and document the REFLECTION of religion on the world and society and report that reflection as if it were the source.

This definition also ignores the possibility of personal religions which are shared by no community, as well as religions that do not involve beliefs and/or rituals - merely because the above do not leave a social reflection behind.

Take Suseonline, saying:

<<As a nurse, I frequently get told I am an angel, so I must be a 'good' atheist>>

Well, she may well be very religious, more than myself - perhaps by her dedicated devotion to her patients she is approaching God in leaps and bounds without even having to hold any formal belief.

---

Dear Is Mise,

<<A good definition of religion is "A way of life".>>

So is alcoholism, but I don't think you would consider it a religion...

---

Dear Trevor,

<<the consistant themes of theistic religions are their claims to knowledge and certainty of truths, not possibilities, beyond external testing or experience.>>

That assumes that theism implies religion. Theism is a religious technique, a wonderful one in fact, especially for beginners, but it doesn't automatically renders the believer religious and it is not meant to replace science.

Science will continue to explain the world and if as Suseonline mentiones, "there are still gaps in our understanding that science can never fill", then it could just be a matter of time till it does.

The religious question, rather, is "why would I want to know about the world, why should I place any importance on it". The religious choice is to ignore the distracting temptations of the world and turn inward towards God instead.

"Dear Is Mise,

<<A good definition of religion is "A way of life".>>

So is alcoholism, but I don't think you would consider it a religion..."

Why not?

It has it's rituals, numerous followers, gods and definite 'out of life' experiences.

May May,

You said,"In a free, modern and democratic society every person has the absolute human right to follow any religion, any belief and any philosophy they choose. They have the right to proselytise, preach, educate and influence"

No one in such a society has any absolute human right to follow any religion etc., you are making a statement as fact that is demonstrably wrong.

ConservativeHippie, I am not a believer in god, simp,y because I fail to accept than if such a being exists, that they could be so cruel toward their fellow man, especially innocent children.

Having said that, I have no problem with anyone who beliefs in, or worships such a being, provided they show me the same respect they are seeking themselves. That being the freedom to actively believe, or disbelieve, without being criticized for their beliefs.

I do however strongly object to any form of god/belief that promots violence to others and, I say to anyone from that side, we are a peace loving nation and that is not welcome here.

'A better methodology is to ensure that such critiques take place within a general program of promoting reason. '

ConservativeHippie

It is not possible to present atheism and reason in the same breath. Why do you think that 'intelligent ' men and women say with a straight face that the Creation or order we see everywhere came from chaos. They may as well believe in fairies. Instead they belligerently sprout their nonsense and scoff at people speaking reason. The very people who clainm their are no absolutes always insist they are absolutely right. There is no reasoning in atheism just man made dogmas which deceive people into believeing they will never have to give account for their lives.

Imagine how indignant runner would have been if I had written what runner himself just wrote ---

"It is not possible to present Christianity and reason in the same breath. Why do you think that 'intelligent' men and women say with a straight face that the creation and order we see everywhere came from an Invisible Sky Daddy. They may as well believe in fairies. Instead they belligerently sprout their nonsense and scoff at people speaking reason. The very people who clainm (sic) their (sic) are religious absolutes always insist they are absolutely right. There is no reasoning in Christianity, just man made dogmas which deceive people into believing they will have to give account for their lives to a mythical and Invisible Sky Daddy."

Maybe runner needs to examine his morality and delve more deeply into his own hatreds and his own Christianity. Yes, if an atheist had written what runner just wrote, but from an opposite perspective to runner, runner would be the FIRST to complain and whinge.

Now onto the strange reply from Is Mise. Do you really believe a Catholic possesses no right to practice Catholicism in the free and democratic society of Australia? Seems so, according to what you just wrote "No one in such a society (free, modern and democratic) has any absolute right to follow any religion". Or are you just trying to be silly, with juvenile 'word play'?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Some form of religion has existed in every society.
Religious beliefs and practices
are so ancient - they can be traced into prehistory.
Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it
seems, had some concept of a supernatural realm that
lay beyond everyday reality. Among the fossilised
remains of these cave dwellers, anthropologists have
found evidence of funeral ceremonies in the form of
flowers and artifacts that were buried with the dead,
presumably to accompany them on the journey to an
afterlife.

I can fully understand why someone
would choose not to be a part of any organised religion.
Many people don't like what organised religion has done
to the world.

I have come to see that true religion is internal, not
external. The spirit within us cannot be blamed for the
blasphemies carried out in its name. What some have
done in the name of religion, projecting their neuroses,
even perpetrating evil on the world, does not make
religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

Secularised organised religions have become, in many
cases, as calcified as other institutions that form the
structure of our modern world. That's why they are
rejected by some. Our religious institutions have
far too often become handmaidens of the status quo,
while the genuine religious experience is anything but
that.

I did turn away from religion - but I found that life
without a conscious awareness of God was difficult and I
came back to religion because that is, theoretically where
to find Him. I believe that organisaed religion will
have to step up to bat, religiously, or it may wither
away. I believe that organised relgiious institutions
will have to transform for the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Of course relgious institutions, as such, are not the
only arbiters of religious experience. They don't
own the Truth, for Truth cannot be owned. Nor should they
think they hold some franchise on our spiritual life.

They are consultants and frameworks, but they are not
God Himself. We should not confuse the path with the
destination.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. I couldn't say it better.

You wrote that "Some form of religion has existed in every society" and I would like to add that some form of religion exited even well before society, before humans and before biological life, that inherent in everything is the drive to become self-aware, that not a single elementary particle is devoid of this drive to be re-united with God.

Yuyustu, what is your definition of the word "god"?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I value your opinion so your kind
words are deeply appreciated.
Thank You.

Dear May,

<<Yuyustu, what is your definition of the word "god"?>>

Because God is not something or someone, it is impossible to define Him positively, but it is possible to use a negative definition:

God is not anything, so you can fill in that space with whatever you like (including "existing"): "God is not _______".

However, there is nothing but God - so whatever is, is God, including you and me and whatever you see or hear or know or think or eat or drink, space or time, etc.

While most of us are under an illusion of being limited human bodies and/or minds, what we truly are is God. This painful illusion is caused by our attachments to "our" body-minds. What religion does is to loosen and eventually remove those barriers that stop us from directly experiencing who we really are - which is God.

Thanks for that Yuyutsu. Your answer leads me directly to my next 3 questions.

Are you claiming that your definition of god is accurate?

If the answer is "yes", how do you KNOW other, different definitions are not accurate?

Also, how do you KNOW you're definition of god is accurate?

Dear May,

No definition can be accurate - language is limited and pales to describe reality.

The only way to know yourself, thus God, is to experience yourself directly - including not via your mind/brain including the verbal paths therein.

In order to allow this direct experience, one must remove what's in the way, including their attachment to their body and mind. This is extremely hard, which is the reason that various religions were developed to teach different methods which gradually help one to surrender their attachments.

Yuyutsu, you wrote, "no definition can be accurate". Are you admitting with this that you may be either partially wrong, or totally wrong, regarding your definition of what you call "god"? If your answer is "no", how do you KNOW that you are not partially wrong, or totally wrong?

After you wrote, "no definition is accurate" you immediately wrote, "the only way to know yourself, thus god, is to - - - - - - -". From this statement it seems to me you are adopting a stance that you positively KNOW how to know god, and that this is the ONLY way to know god. Is this the case?

Dear May,

<<Are you admitting with this that you may be either partially wrong, or totally wrong, regarding your definition of what you call "god"?>>

Of course! God is not a definition!

Define a strawberry as accurately detailed as you like, it will never be equal to the experience of its taste.

<<you are adopting a stance that you positively KNOW how to know god, and that this is the ONLY way to know god. Is this the case?>>

Given that God is not an object, it logically follows that there is no way to know God. This is what is meant by a DIRECT experience - it's not through anything, there is no via, there is no way.

Normally, "knowing" is between two, a subject and an object, but here you ARE God, so there are no two, hence the word "know" is only used due to the limitations of language. If we want to be more pedantic, a closer wording (though still inaccurate due to the limitations of language) could be "to know that I am not anything".

The religious process is not of addition, but of subtraction, of removing the false knowledge, those "glasses" through which we mistakenly see ourselves as limited beings, thus as other than God.

I am not an atheist - to label myself as such would be to confirm that these 'imagined' friends that so many cling to has potentially an independent reality.

May May,

You asked "....what is your definition of the word "god"?"

It is a three letter English word (from Old Saxon), having one vowel and beginning with "g" and ending with "d".
It is also a semi-palindrome as "dog".

See: http://godisimaginary.com/ for some helpful information

I a bit miffed at the moment. I have only just now received todays OLO email. Note it is the 6th. at 9.08 am, & there have already been 5 pages of posts. The first post on this Forum was on Saturday at 3.58pm. Why is that Graham?

CM first post. Finally, something we agree on.

I am an Atheist as well. Well, more your Calathumpian really.

Religion I don't have a problem with at all. If people want to believe in some Deity then that is their thing. It's the "Dogma" in Religion I have a problem with. I have seen a lot of changes in Christian Dogma in the last 60 years. Being Catholic we were to cross the road & say a prayer if we were to walk past a protestant church. If you were Methodist or Presbyterian you couldn't dance or listen to music. 7DA's or JH's couldn't mix with anyone outside their group, have a blood transplant etc.

Most of this has gone by the wayside, but there is a long way to go. Other Dogma on how people live their life is still dominated by the churches. Some Religious people want to get into Parliament & dictate what people can & can't do. E.g; Abortion, Stem Cell therapy. Pushing their Churches particular Dogma onto other people.

The churches see any opposition to their Dogma as being violent. Yes there are a few Politically Correct fools on both sides of the fence.

I just don't want their particular Churches Dogma pushes onto me or anybody else. Fortunately Christians, Hindu's Buddhist won't try to kill you if you don't abide by their Dogma, unlike Islam. I think, in this day & age, it's the only one left doing that.

I'm curious what the declared atheists reading this thread believe in. Some have asked for the theists to describe their believes and/or idea of god.

I realise atheists deny the existence of God, gods, the mystical, and the Divine but do any atheist believe there is a higher purpose to Life, or is that a no go zone also?

Taoism, one of China's biggest 'religions', does not talk about God but does deal with an unseen force, similar to nature but more encompassing - The Way. The goal is to be in harmony with the Way in much the same context as a Kung Fu master would approach life.

Ancient Hindu and Buddhist scripts talk about the dynamic void from which everything manifests. This concept is completely consistent with the Big bang theory and quantum physics which shows the most minute particles literally come and go, vibrating inconsistently into and out of existence.

The essence of eastern philosophy is the is a higher purpose and we are here to discover it. The discovery lies within but is also everywhere all the time. All paths lead to enlightenment and it doesn't matter how long it takes; in fact it cannot be forced.

I think there is a misconception that being an atheist automatically means life has no greater purpose

So Would one of the resident atheists please share you views and opinions on the Big Picture, the unknown answers to life's big questions?

Is this all just a chemical reaction unfolding that has somehow created this perfect set of circumstances to create everything from air, water, bacteria, all the way up to animals and humans with minds and creative instincts?

Is atheism the total denial that something very amazing and apparently inter-related is happening?

There are no right and wrong answers to the above, so please share, it will be interesting.

Jayb,

"Being Catholic we were to cross the road & say a prayer if we were to walk past a protestant church."

That's a new one, haven't heard that before; although I did have the experience in Ireland of putting my religious foot in it once.
It was my first time there and I was travelling by bus through the countryside and when we passed a church just about everyone would make the Sign of the Cross (which for those that don't know is different to the sign of the Cross that one makes in Sydney to let a cab driver know that you want to go to King's Cross; assured return fare!), so being one of the mob I did likewise, a few churches later I made the Sign as we passed another wayside chapel, but nobody else did as it was a Church of Ireland church.
Instant self labeling as a tourist.

ConservativeHippie,

They’re some strange questions given that I already provided two links that should answer some of them:

http://tinyurl.com/mtu4jg2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<I'm curious what the declared atheists reading this thread believe in.>>

Why? Given that the only quality that all atheists all have in common is that lack of beliefs in any gods, the answers you get to this question would be very personal and say nothing about atheism. Atheism doesn’t have a set of tenets, and even if you narrow the definition of atheism to the belief that there are no gods, it would still say nothing about what atheists actually do believe in.

There is no common atheistic way of thinking. Some believe in New Age woo, others, like myself, take a position of scepticism. My atheism is the result of my scepticism. I don’t “believe in” anything because the belief in something implies that a leap of faith has been taken.

As for the Eastern religions you mention, all I can add is that atheism is compatible with any religion that doesn’t have a god belief. Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

One the one hand, it appears as though you are confusing atheism with Scepticism (and even then, Scepticism isn’t an outright rejection of mystical claims) - as so many do. But then you say this…

<<I think there is a misconception that being an atheist automatically means life has no greater purpose>>

Correct. Which is why I’m continuously clarifying, on OLO, what atheism actually is.

<<So Would one of the resident atheists please share you views and opinions on the Big Picture, the unknown answers to life's big questions?>>

My view is that there is no big picture and that the question itself may not even make any sense. My view on the “answers to life's big questions” would depend on the exact question, but I’m not afraid to say, “I don’t know”. That’s the only honest response to big unknowns and making something up is not an answer. Nor are the unknowns evidence of anything mystical.

Is Mise: haven't heard that before.

Ah... yes. As a Catholic, it is Tradition To Cross yourself when you pass a Catholic Church, enter the Church, Genuflect & Cross yourself when you enter a Pew or cross from one side of the Church to the other. That's because you are passing the Tabernacle. The Traditional Church layout is based on the design of the old Jewish Temple which is based on the design of the Temple of Aten, The Egyptian Sun God. The people that left Egypt during the Exodus were a mixture of the old Egyptian religions. Moses was a descendent of Joseph whose family became the Pharaohs. Ba-al literally means "Son of God" The Golden Calf was a rebirth of the old Egyptian Apis Bull God.

"There came a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph." The Hyksos invaded Egypt. Hence the Exodus. These people became the Hebrews, wandering in the Desert until they settled in the Levant. Back to a little north of where Joseph came from (Gaza)(Caananites.)

I love History. I can read some Hieroglyphics.

Back to the Subject. I really don't care what people believe as long as they live by the Golden Rule. Given to us by Confucius Passed on The Buddha, Thence to the Jews by the remenants of Alexanders Army, Thence to Joshua Ben Nazzaene (Jesus). "Do unto others as you would have them to do you." Unfortunately most Religions added, "But do it first." Christianity & most other Religions seem to have out grown this thinking with one notable exception. Islam.

Do I think there is anything out there known to Earthlings as "God", No. What is the Meaning of Life? (42). I thought we all knew that. I think humans are inherently "Good" until religion F... them up then they go "Bad." Some people ARE inherently "Bad" because of their upbringing by feral parents. Nothing to do with religion.

Thanks AJ

I'm a curious person and I like to know what others think about things, if they want to share, and not just on this topic. Your links provide a broad outline of atheism, but I am curious about how someone who is an atheist feels/sees/thinks about the Universe, the reason it exists and us in it. My curiosity and questions are not to judge anyone, but to open the discussion. Sharing ideas offers the opportunity to learn something new or see things from another person's perspective.

I realised there could be only individual replies to my questions and that's what I still hope to see. Thanks again for sharing yours.

Hippie, I suspect you don't understand, like many people, that atheism is NOT a philosophy, a belief, a religion, a stance, a methodology, a theology, etc etc. Atheism is ONE thing only, it is nothing else other than this one thing --- "a non-belief in gods". Atheism says and does nothing else whatsoever.

Atheists themselves however, just like Christians, Jews, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists can, and often do, have their personal "slants" and "twists and turns".

I for example am a gnostic atheist. My personal slant says "no gods exist" --- that's it, that's ALL it says. It does NOT say, "I believe no gods exist" nor does it say "I know no gods exist". Whether I believe, or know, or none of those two, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not gods exist, or don't exist, in factual reality or non factual reality or another type of reality.

So I say, "no gods exist". So what's left? Living life is what's left, and nothing is deeper or more profound than living life, whether you're a human or an insect or microscopic life. Believing in ancient religious superstitions doesn't elevate one onto a higher philosophical, intellectual or insightful platform than other people.

What about believing in ancient wisdom? Or put another way, accepting the wisdom that has stood the test of time, still applies. There are things that are immutable truths for all ages.

To be clear, I'm talking about wisdom, not a set of rules or stories associated with any religion.

That raises the question what wisdom am I referring too? The answer to that can only be acquired by looking for it and deciding its validity oneself.

Dear Jayb,

Just a tiny correction:

<<Moses was a descendent of Joseph whose family became the Pharaohs. Ba-al literally means "Son of God">>

Moses was a descendent of Levy - Joseph's brother.
According to recent archaeological research, only the tribe of Levy left Egypt in the exodus. The other tribes, descendants of Jacob, lived in Kna'an (now Israel, for it was Jacob's other name) and never left for Egypt in the first place.

Ba-al literally means "owner"/"husband".

The golden rule was introduced to the Jews by Rabbi Hillel ("the elder" because he lived more than 100 years) which some say was Jesus' mentor. I have no idea whether Hillel got it from another source or discovered it himself.

Hippie said, "what about believing in ancient wisdom?". The problem with that is 2 words you used, "believing" and "wisdom". One person's belief can easily be another person's heresy, in other words belief without empirical proof is mere "belief". Also, one person's declared ancient "wisdom" can easily be another person's declared ancient ignorance.

People often use the word "wisdom" as a substitute for words like philosophy, belief, religion etc (when they greatly approve of the philosophy, belief, religion etc).

Yuyutsu: Ba-al literally means "owner"/"husband".

My understanding of Ancient languages after some studies of different ones. Ba/Ben = Son. Al/El = God. E.g. Al-l'ah = Great/One/Only God. Just saying, that's my understanding from Larousse's "World of Mythology" & a few other Books.

Yuyutsu: Moses was a descendent of Levy - Joseph's brother.

Yes, I had to look that one up again. Moses's full name. Ra-moses. God of the river. (found in the Bull rushes by one of the many Daughters of the Pharaoh. (convenient eh, for a child out of wedlock) Still that's what happened to Mary after Augustus raped her. Then her betrothed (Antipater) got his head chopped off by his father (Herod.) Ain't history wonderful?

Now back to the subject. Looking for the meaning of life is what started all the Worlds problems in the first place.

I don't believe there is a "Meaning to life." It just is. That's it.

No Gods, Deities. Everything around us is just a big fractal. It doesn't matter which way you go up, down, sideways, it's all the same, just bigger or smaller versions. It all comes & goes in Micro Seconds or Trillions of years to the Nth.

What humans do has nothing to do with it. We are just part of the Sauce Bottle. Sometimes we're the tomato in the sauce, sometimes the silicon in the bottle.

Dear Conservativehippie,

I think you may find this recent Pew research interesting.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-religious-groups-view-one-another/pf_14-07-16_interreligiousrelations_all/

It is a table showing the different religious groups' ratings of each other taken from respondents in the US.

I'm afraid it isn't good news for the likes of our runner since his lot, the white evangelists who are so stridently pro-Israel, give Jews their highest ranking (69) while in return Jews give them the lowest (34), even behind Muslims (35) and way behind what they give atheists (55).

My take on it is the more demonstrably irrational a religious group the more those of the Jewish faith distance themselves. That is evidenced quite succinctly here on OLO posters with the stark differences between runner and Yuyutsu. Yuyutsu's logical approach to many questions can be a little disconcerting but the fundamentalist, creationist, biblical literalist rantings of runner are deemed irrational by most of us.

It should be noted that Buddhists are given the highest ranking from both Jews and Atheists.

I think the conflict you feel you observe on OLO is primarily between the two groups who give each other their lowest rankings White Evangelists rank Atheists at 25 and Atheists return the favour with a ranking of 28.

Perhaps others may have a different perspective on the figures.

May May

I wish you didn't always feel to need to argue your points based on your definitions of things.

You say >One person's belief can easily be another person's heresy, in other words belief without empirical proof is mere "belief". Also, one person's declared ancient "wisdom" can easily be another person's declared ancient ignorance. <

That's a negative possibility but there is also the chance one person's wisdom could help someone else from making a big mistake. A wise person might advise another not to stand too close to the edge of the cliff, in the knowledge the ground beneath is unstable.

From the dictionary: Wisdom (sophia) is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight with good intentions. Also - disposition to perform the action with the highest degree of adequacy under any given circumstance.

Now what's wrong with that kind of wisdom... yeah, I see it coming - good intentions. But there is in fact Good, especially coming from a place of knowledge, experience and understanding.

You are a tough nut to find a common ground with. Using your logic, how can you believe what you are saying is correct when it requires the belief you are correct... how do you know with 100% certainty that you are correct?

Interesting Site steelie.

I noted in this one.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/pf_14-07-16_interreligiousrelations_totalratings1/

That Jews, 63 Catholic, 62 & Evangelical Christian, 61, are at the top of the list in that order & Atheist at 41 & moslems at 40 the lowest.

This is an American Site & I'm sure Australians have a lot different take on ranking Religions. In fact I don't think, other than a few old Traditional, that anybody really cares. One thing for sure moslems would be down around the 20 Mark in Australia & Atheists much further up the pole. Americans tend to be very much Tribalists. They are still fighting the War between North & the South.

It depends on where the polls were taken. In the Mid West they hate everyone that is not Evangelical Christian, The Southern Baptists & Pentacolists hate everybody. Then there are Mormons, Amish, Millerite's, Mennonites, Quakers & a dozen Orthodox Christian Groups. Where do they stand?

This Site has no relationship to Australians.

Hippie, it's impossible for me to know with 100% certainty that I am correct. The same applies to every other living being. The same applies to the correctness or non correctness of every single conclusion, theory, belief, experiment etc in existence. THAT'S the very basis of science itself. Unlike many aspects of many ancient superstitions, science is 100% capable of change when new empirical evidence is presented, in fact science actively seeks the empirical evidence and indeed DOES change, often.

You wrote, "That's a negative possibility". No it isn't. It's a recognition of the factual reality that there's often 2 sides to many so called pieces of "wisdom". In other words, people often "claim" wisdom, when in fact it can be something quite different, and the opposite also applies. Certain so called "wisdom" can be good for some people, and bad for other people. YOUR wisdom may be perfectly suited to you, and another person's wisdom may be totally unsuitable for you. It's not about wisdom being negative or positive, it's about the factual reality of the actual application of wisdom regardless of what that factual reality is, or isn't.

Or to simplify, one person's heretic and dangerous idiot, can sometimes be another person's wise old man.

MayMay you haven't convinced me about anything other than you love to argue and you aren't going to try to see another view point than your own, even if you don't believe what you are arguing.

I give up, you win on everything, all threads on OLO. I'm glad we didn't get the chance to lock horns on the climate debate.

Have a nice life.

Hippie, I wasn't trying to "convince" you. Why do you think that? I was presenting my perspective, just as you were presenting your perspective. THAT'S what exchange of ideas is all about. The tolerance of difference is the basis of a free society and is a very precious thing. Everybody has the right to express their ideas, and anyone else has the equal right to oppose those views. Thus, you have every right to oppose my views or to have different views.

The world will never be as one, there will ALWAYS be difference. And the way forward to peace and understanding is the acceptance that people will always be different. The acceptance of difference, and the freedom to express difference (non violently of course) is the way forward to a better and more peaceful world.

MM:. And the way forward to peace and understanding is the acceptance that people will always be different. The acceptance of difference, and the freedom to express difference (non violently of course) is the way forward to a better and more peaceful world.

You & I & everybody here might be will to do that. Good luck convincing your moslem friends to do that though. Oh they will, but only if we all convert to Islam. Nah... then they'll start killing anyone that thinks different to all of their different sects anyway.

Ah... huh... Ah well... (sighs)

Jayb is fresh from watching Andrew Bolt yesterday. Then Jayb got up this morning and went to the newsagent to get his latest copy of the Daily Telegraph. After that he listened to 3 hours of Alan Jones. Then he went onto the internet this arvo to listen to the last few programmes from Rush Limbaugh. Jayb is such an independent thinker.

.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

.

I think you will find that there are a number of people on OLO who deride others. The practice is not specifically limited to “belief in God” or “openly admitting to being part of a religion” as you suggest. Derision takes many forms, is more or less vehement, more or less systematic and applies to just about any subject you like to name here on OLO.

The triggers are multiple and varied. In addition to the two you cited, there are also atheism, creationism, abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, women, leftists, avant-gardists, conservatives, rightists, and many others, including even my good friend “one under god” who has great difficulty expressing himself – to the extent that somebody started a thread on OLO, a few years back, in order to protest to his presence here and have him evicted - fortunately, without success.

You wrote:

« …the qualities of forgiveness and tolerance are not exclusive to the theists. Surely atheists also have the ability to show compassion, fairness, Love and understanding »

Happily, the qualities you mention are not just limited to theists and atheists. I doubt that there are many here who would spontaneously define themselves in such terms anyway.

Nor do I see expressing derision, mockery, scorn, laughing at, humiliating, or ridiculing others as the norm. Perhaps it is more prevalent on OLO than in society at large. I see it as something of the order of a personality disorder. Perhaps it expresses fear or horror of the difference. Or, conversely, fear or horror, triggered by the recognition in others of something we detest, and are ashamed to admit, in ourselves.

Whatever it is, it seems to be some sort of defence, when faced with what is interpreted as some sort of aggression, triggered by a feeling of insecurity in the person who expresses the derision.

Also, please allow me to remark that I doubt that future generations of so-called “atheists” would see much point in defining themselves by reference to something they consider does not exist. The others will probably do the labelling.

.

Just to remind you May May. From the Great Burka debate.

MM: you have to realise that Jayb is still digesting Andrew Bolt from the weekend,

I read the Courier Mail & the Sunday mail. I couldn't tell you who wrote what article. I never look at who wrote it. I just read the article, if I agree with it all well & good, if I don't, Same Same, but different. Sometimes I'll agree with parts & disagree with other parts. I couldn't tell left from right based on what they say. Oh I like Francis Whiting who writes a funny page in the Lift out in the Sunday Mail. She about the only author I could put a name of an article too.

I don't listen to the Radio either, too much talking. I haven't got time for that. I put the Reel to Reel on down in the shed & sing along all day.

By the way. You never answered the question on what type of Nun your sister was, Good Samaritan, Mercy, ??

“Paul Tillich maintained that the main dividing line runs, not between those who regard themselves as believers and those who regard themselves as nonbelievers, but between those whom God leaves indifferent - whether “indifferent atheists” or conventional Christians - and those who are existentially concerned by the “question of God” - whether they be passionate seekers after God (such as mystics), people “wrestling with God” (like Nietzsche), or people who thirst after faith but are unable to find a place in any form of religion they have so far encountered.
---
It would be a reprehensible neglect if Christianity failed to use for its own benefit the fact that, during the modern era, it was subject, more than any other religion, to the purgative flames of atheist criticism; it would be just as unfortunate to lack the courage to enter that smelting furnace as to renounce, in the midst of the flames, the faith and hope that are intended to be tested and refined."

(Tomas Halik, Patience with God, Doubleday 2009; the author is a sociologist, psychotherapist and Catholic priest who grew up us an atheist in Communist Czechoslovakia)

Banjo Paterson,

Theism and atheism are logical absolutes; you’re either one or you’re the other. Most of time when a non-believer says they’re not an atheist, they actually mean they’re not an antitheist.

Here are some links I provided earlier regarding this:
http://tinyurl.com/mtu4jg2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<Also, please allow me to remark that I doubt that future generations of so-called “atheists” would see much point in defining themselves by reference to something they consider does not exist.>>

I don’t think many would *define* themselves “by reference to something they consider does not exist” even now. It’s simply a label that describes whether or not one believes in a god or gods. It can’t say anything about who an individual is, or their political views, etc. This is what people fail to realise when they try to tie atheism to communism: there is nothing within atheism to support what the communists did.

This hesitation the use the word ‘atheist’ is interesting. We would have no hesitation in someone saying that we’re a-fairyist, a-unicornist or a-Loch-Ness-monsterist, but as soon as a-theist is mentioned, the reason often cited for the rejection of the term is the fact that one should not have to have a label because others choose to believe absurd things. While I can sympathise with that, it’s a little disingenuous because if the above made-up terms of mine actually existed, it’s unlikely that anyone would vigorously avoid them. There’s usually another reason, other than the one being stated, as to why the label is being rejected.

Following from my last paragraph to Suseonline, people need to understand that shunning the term feeds the prejudice against it - which affects those who shun it too.

Certainly not referring to you here when I say this, BP, but as an aside, I’ve always found it bizarre that often the most militant in this debate are those who call themselves “agnostics” (unaware that agnosticism addresses a different question). They’re just so-o-o-o passionate about the idea that there might be a god and, strangely enough, only attack those who don’t believe there is. They’re very confused.

You're right about agnostics AJ. On occasion agnostics, with all their "variations" of what might or might not be, can be even more confused than the Christians, Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc --- well "almost". Some agnostics, a minority, are radically anti atheist.

The religions we are
familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric
Judeo-Christian ideas about religion. These ideas
are based on a number of central beliefs: that
there exists one supreme being or God; that God
created the universe and all life, and takes a
continuing interest in the creation; that there is
a life hereafter; and that our moral behaviour in this
life influences our fate in the next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular
combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not
recognise a supreme being, and a number do not believe in
gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about
the origins of the universe and life, leaving these problems
to be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth,

Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in
human affairs. Some have almost nothing to say about life
after death, and many - perhaps most- do not link our
earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.

Obviosuly, religion cannot be defined in terms of the
Western religious tradition alone.

The religious convictions that anyone holds (or not) are
influenced by the historical and social context in which
that person happens to live. There are a large number of
religions, many of whose members are convinced that
theirs is the one true-faith and that all others are
misguided, superstitions, even wicked.

However most of us are not qualified and don't
have the knowledge of expertise to be
concerned with the truth or falsity
of any religion. Sociological research is directed at
the social rather than the theological aspects of religion.
Regardless of whether or not a supernatural power exists,
relgiion, like any other institution, has social
characteristics that can be studied by the methods of
social science.

Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel, "Tom Jones,"
declares:

"When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion;
and not only the Chrisitan religion, but the Protestant
relgion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the
Church of England."

Most people are like Mr Thwackum when they mention religion,
they have their own in mind.

Interesting, May May. I can’t recall encountering an agnostic who was very antitheist. In my experience, non-believers will refer to themselves as “agnostics” for five main reasons:

1) older generations who think that atheism is synonymous with communism;
2) those who think that atheists must necessarily be strident, angry, or dogmatically certain;
3) those who are still emerging from their indoctrination and are not yet comfortable with the term ‘atheist’;
4) those who are ultra-polite and afraid of offending believers by applying to themselves a label that effectively says, “I think your whole life is a lie.” (this may be a result of the special, protected status that religious belief still enjoys);
5) elitist snobs who think it’s clever to ask atheists (and often only atheists), “Ah, but how can you know?!”

I have sympathy for 3. I was once at that stage myself. The one’s I can’t stand (and was referring to before) are 6. They’ll entertain the idea of a god but will then, in a grand display of intellectual inconsistency, happily disregard other equally unjustified beliefs without a second thought. They seem to feel so clever when they ask how others can KNOW, completely unaware that their entire position, from which they feel so smugly superior to everyone else, is based on some very basic errors and fallacies.

From my encounters with them, I suspect that many of the sixers were indoctrinated by very strict religious parents and are sitting on the fence in some sort of an ‘Agnostic’s Wager’ because they cannot get the thought of hell out of their heads, and feel that whatever god is up there will at least be forgiving of their non-committal stance, should they exist. But this doesn’t explain why they display so much emotional investment in what might exist but probably doesn’t. What kind of a weirdo does that?

Theists love agnostics, of course, because they feel like there’s a group out there who have at least met them halfway.

The atheist who is absolutely certain of their position is a red herring and probably doesn’t exist.

Foxy: Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel, "Tom Jones,"
declares:

"When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Chrisitan religion, but the Protestant relgion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England."

Most people are like Mr Thwackum when they mention religion, they have their own in mind.

I think Thwackum, to my understanding of Christian Religious Denominations. I would have put the Church of England in as a variation of Catholic.

As it goes RC, C of E & OPD's

Foxy: The religions we are familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.

I would have emphasised "Western" Judeo-Christian Religions. I really don't think the average Australians, in general, know much about Eastern Religions or Islam. If you asked someone about Hinduism & Sikhism they would say that they have got lots of strange Gods, but that's about all they know. Oh, Hari Khrisna. "Oh they dance around a lot & have really good food." If you asked about Buddhism they would say, "Oh they worship Buddha." which is, of course, wrong. Now-a-days If you asked the Average Australian about Islam they would say, Oh, they blow people up & cut their heads off." That's about all most people know, or even bother to know.

As for Atheists, I think most people probably think, UFO's. It's only the anti people on both sides bother to discuss the Subject. I think most Atheist just don't give a $#it one way or the other what anyone thinks.

May May any word on what type of Nun your sister was, or is she a pretend Sister, sister.

Ooops... '6' and 'sixers' should read '5' and 'fivers'.

I merged a couple because I didn't think they warranted categories of their own.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

Many thanks for your observations and web links on atheism.

You wrote:

« Theism and atheism are logical absolutes … »

My understanding is that primeval man invented the supernatural and god concept as an explanation of powerful natural phenomena which instilled so much fear and awe in him. The concept allowed him to develop a strategy for survival based on it. He did everything he could to try to placate his conceptual gods’ anger through worship, docility, obedience and servitude as well as by offering them gifts and sacrifices, including human sacrifices.

That was a process which had its beginnings about five to seven million years ago when, according to present day palaeontologists, we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

I am inclined to think that prior to primeval man’s invention of the supernatural and god concept, there were no such “logical absolutes” as you suggest. If they now exist, it must be because they are the consequence of the invention of the supernatural and god concept of primeval man five to seven million years ago.

I consider that concept to be archaic and no longer valid as an explanation of natural phenomena. Nor do I attribute any value to the strategy of survival developed by our primeval ancestors.

I guess that places me back in the position we human beings occupied before we branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees. I return to the world view we commonly held “prior” to or “anterior” to the imposition of the “logical absolutes” of theism and atheism.

In this sense, my return to animality is a form of emancipation. I find it quite exhilarating to step back into humanity with a clean slate and the prospect of reinventing the world.

.

Jayb, are you saying my sister was pretending to be a nun? Weird. How would you know anything personally about her? The Dominicans of St. Cecilia have been established in Sydney and thereabouts mainly, for quite a long time time now. My sister is deceased.

One thing I can say about the Atheist Religion is that their priests are very unlikely to sexually interfere with children. The latest being some scum bucket from that mob of money making happy clappers 'Hillsong' Church. Fortunately the old man at the head of this mob, the rock spider himself Frank Houston, is now dead.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hillsong-church-leader-blamed-victim-for-sex-abuse-royal-commission-told-20141007-10rd6m.html

Dear Banjo,

I agree, as I do with the following:

My understanding is that primeval man invented elementary arithmetics (and geometry) as an explanation of quantitative aspects of observed reality. The concept allowed him to develop a strategy for survival based on it. He did everything he could with these "conceptual constructions" in order to better understand and conquer his environment .

That was a process which had its beginnings about five to seven million years ago when, according to present day palaeontologists, we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

I am inclined to think that prior to primeval man’s invention of elementary arithmetics (and geometry), there was nothing that could be called mathematics. If abstract mathematical concepts now exist, it must be because they are the consequence of the invention of elementary arithmetics (and geometry) of primeval man five to seven million years ago.

I consider that concepts of elementary arithmetics, as understood by primeval man (only counting), to be archaic and no longer sufficient to explain physical phenomena. Nor do I attribute any value to the strategy of survival developed by our primeval ancestors based only on their knowledge of what later developed into contemporary mathematics (and science).

-

Nevertheless, this does not imply anything about the usefulness or not of this or that part or feature of contemporary mathematics or its ability or not to explain physical reality.

Perhaps something similar could be said about primitive vs contemporary, including philosophically sophisticated, attempts to understand human existence and its purpose, when seen as part of a reality that is not reducible to its physical manifestations.

In one of my many books I remember reading that primitive man had on actual language that described anything past three. Most primitive Hunter Gatherers, even to day, have only, "one, two, three, many." Most don't have "God or Gods" as described in, for the want of a better word, a "civilized" concept. They have stories explaining "things" around them in "their" world. e.g.; the Australian Aborigine. Some, further up the chain, have "spirits" that govern things that happen in nature.

Would you call these people "atheists?" as they don't really have a modern concept of "God" as we do. Just a thought.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

So long as there is one person who believes in a god or gods, then atheism and theism exist and are logical absolutes. They are not reliant on the usefulness or validity of religion.

Furthermore, logical absolutes exist whether or not we are even there to conceive of them. So, since animals are technically atheists (implicit atheists), one could argue that theism and atheism still existed as logical absolutes in prehistoric times, it’s just that no-one or no-thing was a theist (you could argue that an entity requires a consciousness of some sort to have the label of ‘atheist’ but it wouldn’t detract from what I’m saying).

The concept of a theist didn’t pop into theoretical existence when the first human ancestor conceived of the concept of a god. Let’s say, for example, that in some post-apocalyptic civilisation in the future (in which humans have become very superstitious again), they invent a mystical concept known as ‘Woogiejabba’; we may not have conceived of Woogiejabba yet, but we are still all a-woogiejabba-ists because we lack the belief in it.

In fact, we are all an infinite number of a-something-or-others, and this is - ultimately - why theists bear the burden of proof.

Theodicies can explain human problems in many ways.
The Hindu doctrine of reincarnation deals with
suffering and evil by extending the life span
indefinitely; one's present existence becomes merely
a tiny link in an endless chain, in which death and
misery seem only temporary and insignificant.

The mysticism of Buddhism or Taoism offers the
believer salvation at a spiritual level, where earthly
cares become unimportant. Christian theodicy holds out
the hope of eternal salvation in heaven in recompense for
ordeals on earth.

The Zoroastrian theodicy sees the universe as a
battleground between the evenly balanced forces of good
and evil, with the misfortunes of humans stemming from
their failure to throw their weight on the side of good.

In Shintoism, which focuses on ancestor worship, one's
sorrows and the idea of death are made tolerable by
the knowledge that one's life will be remembered and
celebrated by one's descendants forever.

Our discussion of theodicies implies that religion does
have some function in social life; and, in fact, the
functionalist perspective offers many insights into the
role of religion in society.

Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest functionalist
theorists was the first sociologist to apply the
perspective to religion in a systemiatic way. Durheim
believed that the origins of religion were social, not
supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their source,
the rituals enacted in any religion enhance the
solidarity of the community as well as its faith.

Religious rituals such as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings,
Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals - rituals
like these serve to bring people together. To remind them
of their common group membership; to reaffirm their
traditional values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos;
to offer comfort in times of crisis; and, in general, to help
transmit the cultural heritage from one generation to the
next.

In fact, Durkheim argued, shared relgious beliefs and the
rituals that go with them are so important that every society
needs a religion, or at least some belief system that seves
the same functions.

Foxy - thank you for sharing all that; its was very good.

.

Dear George,

.

That is a fairly good – not quite perfect – but nevertheless amusing attempt at a parody. It almost mirrors my logic but faulters on a couple of occasions in order to arrange your affair – which it does quite nicely.

Allow me to add that your signature at the bottom of the post is superfluous. Nobody else could possibly have written those final two paragraphs, George. You are inimitable.

Please be assured that under no circumstances could I imagine that you might, some day, arrive at the conclusion that primeval man’s brilliant invention of “the supernatural and god” should, in the final analysis, be recognized simply for what it is: a conceptual error.

So what? Let us continue to perpetuate it, rearrange it, modify it, adapt it, embellish it, and reinvigorate it in order to maintain its pertinence for those who need it, for as long as possible.

All I ask, in return, is that I be allowed to parody Foxy’s message on page 11 of this thread, by misquoting Durkheim’s argument in the following manner :

« … shared illusions and the rituals that go with them are so important that every society (and many individuals within society) need them … »

And to conclude: such is human nature.

.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote:

« So long as there is one person who believes in a god or gods, then atheism and theism exist and are logical absolutes »

This would appear to mean that you consider that for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does.

That sounds easy but I doubt that it works.

As for the designation “logical absolutes”, I understand this to mean rational statements or expressions which obey the laws of logic.

It seems to me that a statement or expression which is a “logical absolute” is not necessarily true. I can only see it as being true if the premises on which it is based are true.

.

You also wrote:

« In fact, we are all an infinite number of a-something-or-others, and this is - ultimately - why theists bear the burden of proof »

While this sentence appears to indicate that “theists bear the burden of proof” that they are theists, I suspect that what you really mean is that “theists bear the burden of proof” that the god in which they believe exists.

Presuming my suspicion to be correct, your statement that “theists bear the burden of proof” seems to be in contradiction with the opinion you expressed previously: that “for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does”.

As you can see, I am a little confused.

.

Whilst Bishop Berkeley held that 'esse is percipi', to be is to be perceived...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/berkeley/#H4

...the concept seems to me to fall apart since just because one person claims to perceive something does not endow that 'being' with existence outside their imagination.

Hence - for everyone else - the concept of delusion... regardless of its reality to the person concerned.

Ask any conspiracist.

For me an interesting question is how many people need to imagine they are sharing the same delusion for it to achieve a reality and for the problems to start.

Maybe the question is immaterial?

Dear Banjo Paterson,

<<This would appear to mean that you consider that for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does.>>

Not at all. In fact, I later went on to say that one could argue that we don’t even need to be here to conceive of theism and atheism for them to exist as concepts, and that implicit atheism exists with or without humans around.

<<As for the designation “logical absolutes”, I understand this to mean rational statements or expressions which obey the laws of logic.>>

Logical absolutes are binary, true/false concepts that adhere to the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle. Think of any object - that object cannot be both itself and something else at the same time, just as one cannot be both a theist and an atheist at the same time.

More relevant to our discussion, however, would be the Law of the Excluded Middle. Take theism and atheism for example - theism is the belief in a god or gods; atheism is everything else (e.g. lacking a god belief, rejecting a god belief, asserting that a god does not exist, not being sure of what one believes). With logical absolutes, something either is, or it is not; there is no in between; nor is there a third option, as you had implied in the post that I initially responded to.

<<I suspect that what you really mean is that “theists bear the burden of proof” that the god in which they believe exists.>>

Correct.

<<... your statement that “theists bear the burden of proof” seems to be in contradiction with the opinion you expressed previously: that “for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does”.>>

I’m not sure how you interpreted what I had said to mean that. All I meant, in what you had quoted of me, was that so long as there is someone out there who believes in a god, then theism and atheism are intelligible concepts and exist as concepts.

Dear Foxy,

<<Theodicies can explain human problems in many ways.>>

Yes, but it would be like using a golden bucket and broom studded with diamonds to clean the floor.

<<Our discussion of theodicies implies that religion does
have some function in social life; and, in fact, the
functionalist perspective offers many insights into the
role of religion in society...

Religious rituals such as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings,
Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals - rituals
like these serve to bring people together. To remind them
of their common group membership; to reaffirm their
traditional values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos;
to offer comfort in times of crisis; and, in general, to help
transmit the cultural heritage from one generation to the
next.>>

All one can really conclude is that there are SOME religious practices that also have a beneficial role in society.

This is further complicated because not all of the above rituals produce a religious benefit for all who practice them. While for some these could be part of their religion, many others practice those exact rituals sheerly for the social effect.

There is however nothing wrong with an overlap, with the same action serving two purposes.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote :

« … we don’t even need to be here to conceive of theism and atheism for them to exist as concepts … atheism exists with or without humans around … »

My understanding is that theism and atheism are human concepts. If no humans are around to have such concepts I do not see how they can possibly exist.
.

You also wrote :

« With logical absolutes, something either is, or it is not; there is no in between; nor is there a third option, as you had implied in the post that I initially responded to »

You seem to be suggesting that the human concept of “logical absolutes” is eternal, with no beginning and no end. Whereas, I understand that it cannot and does not predate humanity, that it can be abandoned and allowed to fall into oblivion at any time, and will necessarily disappear with humanity. I consider that the concept of “logical absolutes”, like all things human, is purely temporal.

What you refer to as the “third option” corresponds, no doubt, to those periods during which I consider that there are no “logical absolutes” either because mankind has abandoned them and allowed them fall into oblivion, or because it is simply impossible for them to predate or postdate humanity.

Apart from those periods, however, when and where a particular “logical absolute” is able to exist and, in fact, does exist, I have no problem understanding and accepting the principle of the concept that it either is or it is not, with no in between.

As a final comment, allow me to suggest that whoever invented the term “logical absolute” was poorly inspired. We are lost in a universe in constant evolution, where nothing is absolute and everything is relative and where human logic has its limitations. It is misleading to say the least. I should even say it is illogical.

It is probably why we have so much difficulty understanding each other.

.

My partner, believes in many gods, not only the Christian God, but also her own gods about a dozen of them from Ranginui the Sky Father and I think his wife Papa who gave all life to the earth and lesser gods and goddess's, covering a variety of functions, from the sea to the forest etc etc. Unlike most religions Maori belief gives woman a fair amount of power, with a couple of very powerful female goddess's. Below the gods are some kinds of deities or ancestors. Not only do people have ancestors but animals also have ancestors. A lot of belief is based on respect, respect not only for other human beings but respect for things like animals and plants and the ancestors etc. Those who disrespect can be in for a whole lot of trouble. The positive side is those who live a good life with respect are rewarded in some way. She claims proof of her life's reward is having many good moko's (grandchildren), she also thinks I might also be a reward from the gods as well, but she is not too sure about that! Works for her.

Dear Banjo,

No parody intended. All I wanted to stress was

(i) the fact that most concepts (whether or not “conceptual errors”, whatever that means), that (Western) philosophers and scientists of the last couple of millennia where engaged in exploring and discussing, have their roots in the primeval man’s primitive understanding of his surroundings, (and of himself), in order to survive,

and

(ii) that this fact does not imply anything about the usefulness or “truthfulness” of the concepts thus evolved into our century. [Like the story of Einstein’s childhood and his then childish understanding of the physical world is irrelevant to the usefulness or “truthfulness” of his relativity theory.]

Of course, I knew that we had different ideas about what constituted reality, and what concepts could adequately represent it, but thought that the two observations above were acceptable irrespective of these differences.

AJ & Banjo: the term “logical absolute”

You know, it's like looking into a muddy pool & trying to see the boetom. It ain't gonna happen. Philosophers do that. Looking too deaply into & for a problem when there isn't a problem at all.

Theists hierarchy don't like Atheists because they don't control those people & they instruct their followers to do the same. The Atheist Hierarchy don't like being bullied by the Theist. They just want to be left alone.

The notion of a "God" is a Western concept & when Europeans encountered Animists they automatically called their "Spirits" "Gods." The Australian Aborigine, South Sea Islands & many others don't have "Gods" to the same understanding as Europeans do. They do now because that's how described their "Spirits" to the local peoples.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

It seems that you are still not understanding what logical absolutes are. They are not ‘things’ as such, but concepts that we apply to reality in order to make sense of the world. We can’t abandon them either. They exist whether we like it or not.

It sounds as though you are conflating or confusing the concept with the labels that are being applied to the concept, because whether or not everything is constantly evolving and relative, and whether or not human logic has its limitations is entirely beside the point.

Without at least an implicit understanding of logical absolutes, you could not possibly make sense of the world and would cease to function. You would probably have to be strapped to a bed and fed through a drip, as or your actions would be random, and unintelligible to everyone else.

<<My understanding is that theism and atheism are human concepts. If no humans are around to have such concepts I do not see how they can possibly exist.>>

I’ve explained this in my second post to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6587#198423). As another example, take any object: a rock. That rock is itself and everything else is not that rock. That rock cannot be itself and something else at the same time; nor can that rock exist and not exist at the same time; nor can anything exist in a state in which it is somewhere in between that rock and everything that is not that rock.

The above applies whether or not we are there to conceive of it. Are you suggesting that until we arrived on the scene, it was possible for something to be both itself and something else at the same time? Or that things can simultaneously be ‘not’ something and ‘not not’ that something (pardon the double negative)? What would that third category be?

<<You seem to be suggesting that the human concept of “logical absolutes” is eternal, with no beginning and no end.>>

Maybe not before the big bang (since not even time existed).

AJ: I’ve explained this in my second post to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp? Discussion=6587#198423). As another example, take any object: a rock. That rock is itself and everything else is not that rock. That rock cannot be itself and something else at the same time; nor can that rock exist and not exist at the same time; nor can anything exist in a state in which it is somewhere in between that rock and everything that is not that rock.

Yep, as I said. Philosophers looking into a muddy pool decreeing how the World "is."

Actually, Banjo Paterson, I’ll make this easier by going back to the start and asking you a question in light of the definitions that I linked you to.

You initially said: “Happily, the qualities you mention are not just limited to theists and atheists.”

You have implied here that there is a group out there who are simultaneously ‘not theists’, and not ‘not theists’.

How is this possible?

Jayb,

There is nothing unclear about what I had said. It’s all very basic stuff. I’m sorry if you are not capable of understanding it.

You are either yourself, or you are not yourself. If you find that confusing then I feel sorry for you and would question how you function in life.

When did our planet and its ecosphere start - along with that of other planets and the spaces around them? How were they created?

It is a very deep topic and no one has ever given me any information - and do I really need to know?

What difference does it make to this planet, that we as animal species of all types live in at present, that some believe in different 'views' and have different 'values' than others?

In some ways many would say it is important - and I would agree - but I can't read a mind - and there is no science to support that.

Some examples:

1. Birds will fly down and eat another animal to survive - when?
2. A family may send a child to a private school - a decision?
3. Environments destroyed by a political party - which area?
4. A couple may want a new home to move in to - is it affordable?
5. Violence and bad behavior - what could prompt it?

This topic is not just about 'good atheist' beliefs - it is about beliefs in principle that respect others rights to believe what they want as much as possible within their own life, that do no negatively impact on the rights of others - that live on this beautiful planet, that we as humans call Earth.

NathanJ: When did our planet and its ecosphere start - along with that of other planets and the spaces around them? How were they created?

Go here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yOUgTaKDkM
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u9YmpCg9bY
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn7VcOU3x2g

It seems that experts in the field of sociology,
like Emile Durkheim emphasied, a society requires some
shared set of beliefs to ensure its cohesion. Of
course these beliefs don't have to be religions.
It can be a social or cultural feature that has the
same effect as another, and may in that sense serve as a
substitute for it. Actually many other belief systems have
been suggested as functional equivalents of religion,
including humanism, fascism, and communism.

Some people argue that these and other belief systems fulfill
the functions of religion so well that they can actually
be regarded as "religion."

The essential difference between such belief systems and
religionis, of course, that though the former serve
some of the same functions as religion, they are not
oriented toward the supernatural, a distinction that should
not be disregarded.

Dear Foxy,

Your posts, as usual, are insightful. Sociology is just one of a number of perspectives that one can have on a phenomenon as complex as religion, see my earlier post about the “six blind wise men”: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). As you rightly point out, only a combination of more perspectives allows us to distinguish religion from other belief systems or mere ideologies, political or social commitments, obsessions superstitions etc.

Dear AJ Philips and Banjo,

Regarding the definition of "atheist", it just occurred to me that most of us are atheists most of the time: even if one believes that God exists while the topic is discussed, when preoccupied with say "how to get from A to B in time", or by "what's for dinner", they fail to remember God. At those times, as well as when they sleep, they don't believe in anything relating to God or gods, thus they must be atheists.

If you are going to have a belief in God, why should you be limited to one God, why not many Gods, all ancient peoples had a belief in many Gods. In fact that was a commonality in the past to worship a particular god to to achieve a specific outcome. Are not Christianity and Islam simply branches of the same religion? Both being off shoots of Judaism, where the principle of the mono god originated.

Dear George,

Thank You for your kind words and comments.
Religion is a complex subject and although it
may often be functional for society, it can also
be deeply implicated in social conflict. A full
understanding of the role of religion in society
must take account of this fact.

Although the randomness and copied-and pasted look of Foxy’s latest posts have left me scratching my head with their apparent irrelevance to the original topic, or where it has lead to now, George is right. You could even break those down into lower order categories too.

Sociology, for example, can also explain religion from a Weberian perspective, a symbolic interactionist perspective, a conflict perspective, a Marxist perspective, a feminist perspective. All are valid perspectives to one degree or another and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

A psychological perspective could be further broken down into a social learning perspective, a behavioural perspective, a developmental perspective, a trait perspective, a evolutionary psychology perspective, a heredity perspective, a neurological perspective, a cognition perspective, a situational perspective, a biosocial perspective. a seizuring theory perspective. The list goes on and on.

Yuyutsu,

Interesting point, though I'm not sure that it's very useful in a practical sense.

Dear A.J. Philips,

I assumed that looking at religion from various
perspectives would add something to this discussion
Friends and I were talking about this very subject
on Saturday evening and yes we did discuss Karl Marx,
we did discuss historical evidence to support
Marx's views. We discussed the ancient societies in
which rulers were believed to be divine, or at least
descended from gods - the pharaohs of Egypt came up
as an example and we also discussed the legitimate
political authority that religion serves.

Anyway, all I was trying to do is broaden the discussion.

See you on another thread.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Interesting point, though I'm not sure that it's very useful in a practical sense.>>

It shows how the definition of atheism is anything but useful in a practical sense.

I for example could be considered an atheist because I do not believe that God (or any other gods) exists. While I love God and routinely try to remember and serve Him more, the fact that I don't believe his existence makes me an atheist, technically.

Someone else could be an avowed atheist, but dedicate her life to the service of others in need without any selfish motive. Why would she do that? What but God connects her to those she serves so she can love them more than her personal needs? Such a person loves and serves God - except she doesn't use the "magic word".

Someone else on the other hand, could be a priest molesting choir boys for breakfast: they constantly declare a belief in God's existence, but behave as if nobody is watching them.

AJ: Sociology, for example, can also explain religion from a Weberian perspective,

There-ya-go-again, getting all tied up with Navel Gazing. You are thinking too deeply into the subjects for the ordinary person. As a consequence Philosophers tie themselves in knots. Sort of walking into a Mirror Maze at the Show. When it's all said & done, all you get is your own reflection multiple times of your own personal view.

Philosophy being one of those airy-fairy subjects. People, who are not much good at anything else get themselves into. They then portray themselves to others, as little all knowing Gods, when they are really just confused people. Xin loi, but that's how I feel about useless time wasting Subjects at Uni.

I said it before, your ordinary Theist & atheist doesn't dwell much past what they themselves believe personally. Some are militant about the subject but most are not.

Yeah, Yuyutsu...you and I had discussions on your idea of God many moons ago.

For someone who doesn't believe something exists, it's always puzzling to me why you assign "Him" a gender (and a capital "H")?

God obviously "does" exist for you (even as merely a concept) - or you would not find it necessity to reference "God" as something you ".... routinely try to remember and serve....

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

Thank you for your explanations. I appreciate your patience. However, I am no further advanced than I was before. If you don’t mind, I shall continue to share my thoughts with you so that you can relate to me more easily.

Your example of a rock is a good place to start. I see four major differences between a rock and a concept :

• A rock is material, whereas a concept is immaterial
• A rock is a single object exterior to mankind, whereas a concept is a mental representation of reality in the mind of one or more individuals
• A rock has an existence independent of mankind, whereas a concept does not. Man creates the concept, not the rock
• There may be a shared perception of a rock by independent observers, whereas a concept may be recognized as valid by some but not by others, some of whom either reject it, are undecided, or simply refuse to take position.

I am also very wary of the notion of the absolute. I doubt that there is such a thing. I see it as purely theoretical, unrealistic, unattainable, non-existent, a figment of the imagination. I should even go so far as to say that It rings of ecclesiastical overtones. It evokes the transcendental, the supernatural.

It appears to me to be tendentious and, therefore, probably has no place in logic.

In addition, any theoretician, be it of the highest authority, who endeavours to impose a concept such as “logical absolutes” as a “sine qua non” condition for a rational discussion must be quite unsure of himself to feel the need to employ such intellectual tyranny.

No matter how hard I look, I fail to see the Emperor’s new clothes. For me, he is naked. There is no “absolute” truth. There are as many “truths” as there are observers. Everything in the universe is relative. And human logic has its limitations...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Having said that, AJ, I do not exclude the possibility that my intellectual capacity may be inadequate for the task in hand. But please don’t worry. I am used to wallowing in my ignorance.

As for your question :

« You have implied here that there is a group out there who are simultaneously ‘not theists’, and not ‘not theists’.

How is this possible? »

I guess the “logical” answer to that, based on what I have just written, is that I refuse the “tyranny” of the “logical absolutes” concept and choose to exercise my free will.

I see no “logic” in defining myself by reference to something which I consider does not exist.

.

poirot: For someone who doesn't believe something exists, it's always puzzling to me why you assign "Him" a gender (and a capital "H")?

No, that is a Grammatical & accepted Traditional Convention, no more & no less. Cheap shot, missed. Anyway, at least he doesn't believe in some Wacko trouble maker called allah.

JayB, You don't have to worry about what God, Allah or Jehovah are doing up there. Its their fanatical followers down here you got to worry about, and I mean all of them, fanaticism breeds hatred. Like my old man told me "Son, never trust a bloke who thinks God is on his side, because no matter what he does, he believes he can do no wrong."

Jayb,

If someone who routinely tells us he doesn't believe something exists, finds a means to assign it a gender, then the "something" must exist as a concept at least.

Even the concept of "nothing" is a concept.

Dear Poirot,

Isn't the tooth-fairy a female?

Creating concepts for our convenience cannot change Reality.

God is not a concept and anyway, I don't know anyone who believes that God exists, but is a concept, as in "a concept created heaven and earth"...

Our minds cannot grasp God, so a concept of God is useful in helping us to focus our feeble minds on worship. Whether our concept is male or female, human or animal, is personal - whatever works best. Hinduism has many concepts of gods to choose from, many of those having four arms: does it actually mean that God has four arms? What nonsense! But if one concentrates better on their worship when they imagine a 4-armed deity, then that's probably the best for them.

.

Dear George,

.

I am sorry to have taken so long to get back to you.

Thank you for your explanations.

What I think is relevant in the case of Einstein, which you mention, is that while he is reported to have been a fairly average student during his youth, it is reported that his fascination for physics and mathematics incited him to study at the prestigious Zürich Polytechnic, resulting in his later scientific achievements.

I do not see this, as you suggest, as being “ … irrelevant to the usefulness or “truthfulness” of his relativity theory”. Quite the contrary. I see a distinctive evolutionary “time line” drawn from his early elementary studies as a youth to his brilliant scientific achievements later in life. The latter would certainly not have been possible without the former.

I see a similar evolutionary “time line” between the animist religions of primeval man, five to seven million years ago, and our far more sophisticated religions of the 21st century.

Naturally, there is a huge difference between the two, just as there was between Einstein, the turbulent, dissipated pupil, and Einstein the scientific genius.

As regards conceptual errors, or errors of conception, I am afraid they are very common in everyday life. They are to be found in all human activity: the construction industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the automobile industry, manufacturing industries. Everywhere where there is creation, design, research and development, consultancy, professional advice and representation, etc.

Conceptual errors and the corresponding responsibilities generate considerable activity in the legal professions, the judiciary, and the insurance and risk management industries.

.

Yuyutsu,

So you appear to be saying that our minds employ the concept of God to assist us in forming a target notion for explanation (of things we can have no understanding of) - and to facilitate "worship" practices.

Why would you worship something you think doesn't exist?

It it's viable to worship, then it does exist to you surely?

I'm more inclined to the Tao - which of course suggests "The Way" - no deity - just the way things are.

Simple wisdom drawn from the material world as a translator for the things our mind cannot grasp.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for your comments.

Of course, I also see “a distinctive evolutionary “time line” drawn from (Einstein’s) early elementary studies as a youth to his brilliant scientific achievements later in life” and that “the latter would certainly not have been possible without the former”. The same when you apply “timeline” to religion.

However, this was not my point, which spoke of the irrelevance of the NAIVE way in which a, say, five years old Einstein saw physical reality to how acceptable to the scientific community were his adult IDEAS about relativity. Physicists - theoretical and experimental - did not have to scrutinise Einstein’s views in his childhood in order to decide to what extent his adult ideas were acceptable, “correct” if you like; his childhood and periods of life you refer to were, naturally, of interest to his biographers.

As to “conceptual errors”, I erroneously thought you were referring to ‘concept’ [an idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language] where "conceptual errors" did not make much sense to me, and not to ‘conception’ [the forming or devising of a plan or idea; the way in which something is perceived or regarded] which makes more sense.

I was talking about concepts not conceptions.

Dear Poirot,

<<So you appear to be saying that our minds employ the concept of God to assist us in forming a target notion for explanation (of things we can have no understanding of) - and to facilitate "worship" practices.>>

But only the second use is good and worthwhile - to facilitate worship.

I suppose that some minds employ the concept of God to satisfy their curiosity, while other minds even employ the concept of God to assist them in chopping other people's heads off, then raping their wives and daughters. These are very poor reasons to invoke the name of God.

<<Why would you worship something you think doesn't exist?>>

Something? God isn't a thing!

Strictly speaking, one cannot worship God because acts of worship, like tango, require two separate entities, subject and object - whereas in this case the worshipper and the worshipped are the same.

So until God-realisation is achieved, one worships images (or representations) of God: these could be physical images or mental images, or they could be sounds, smells, feelings, etc.

Why? because it purifies one's soul and prepares it to experience its true nature - God.

<<It it's viable to worship, then it does exist to you surely?>>

At times I may, for practical considerations, behave AS IF God existed. It's a very useful technique.

Unfortunately, atheists who are not involved in worship, often see this and confuse this religious technique for a statement about reality. Some religious establishments also forgot that it's only a technique.

<<I'm more inclined to the Tao - which of course suggests "The Way" - no deity - just the way things are.>>

Certainly! Some find the Tao more useful then the belief in deities. Just make sure that you actually follow The Way rather than drift along undisciplined by using the CONCEPT of Tao to distract you from it.

<<Simple wisdom drawn from the material world as a translator for the things our mind cannot grasp.>>

Wisdom must lead to action. It is unwise to try to satisfy the mind's curiosity: the mind will never be satisfied!

Yuyutsu,

"something"....okay if you're going to be pedantic.

It appears you can use a device "Him" - but pull me up on that.

How about " Why would you worship God when (according to you) God doesn't exist?

Why is worship required at all?

What's the thing with worship that goes beyond man's awareness of his fragility and that he's at the mercy of the natural world?

Why must wisdom lead to action?

Why can't it merely lead to comfort/peace?

Dear Poirot,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.wisdomcommons.org/virtues/43-action

Dear Poirot,

<<How about " Why would you worship God when (according to you) God doesn't exist?>>

What is so important about existence?
People nowadays seem to be addicted to it.
Does the fact that something exists make it any better?
No, that's a fashionable superstition!

<<Why is worship required at all?>>

It is only required if you want to come closer to God.
- Otherwise, eat, drink and be merry.

For those who are into coming closer to God, worship brings humility.
Humility helps to break the bonds of the ego, which makes us feel separate from God.

But the religious do not worship just because it brings humility - perhaps beginners do, but then one worships simply because it is good to worship, even if it is not required.

<<What's the thing with worship that goes beyond man's awareness of his fragility and that he's at the mercy of the natural world?>>

We are NOT fragile and NOT at the mercy of the natural world.
Yes, our bodies and minds are fragile, but that's a different story.

Fragility is not required for worship - the most famous embodiment of worship and devotion was Hanuman, yet he was also known as the opposite of fragile, the strongest and most capable in body.

In the long term, yes, worship brings humility and the abolition of ego, so the fragility of one's body matters not any more, but that takes time.

For those who are too bodily fragile to worship, their best form of worship is to become strong first.

<<Why must wisdom lead to action? Why can't it merely lead to comfort/peace?>>

So long as we are alive we cannot avoid action. Wisdom leads us to perform the right actions (which lead to peace, not necessarily to comfort) and only those, in place of our ordinary mix of actions.

Dear Foxy,

Fair enough. I thought you might have been trying to add some context to what was being said and just didn’t see the relevance.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Of course the term atheist isn’t meaningful using your understanding of God. Many words wouldn’t be if you got into the nitty-gritties of it. But billions around the world find it useful and that’s all that matters.

P.S. I haven’t forgotten about our other discussion. Just very busy at the moment and the responses on this thread are quick and easy to punch out.

Jayb,

Why can't you just let other people discuss what they want to with others? How does it affect you? Are you really that insecure?

There are a lot of discussions on OLO that I find silly or that I am not educated enough in to make a meaningful contribution, but I don't barge in on the discussion with insults and tell everyone that they’re all wasting their time.

Your charge of “navel gazing” is misplaced too. Navel gazing is excessive or self-indulgent and is done at the cost of the broader picture, which I take it you feel is this:

<<... [Y]our ordinary Theist & atheist doesn't dwell much past what they themselves believe personally. Some are militant about the subject but most are not.>>

I agree and have not lost sight of that. But that doesn’t render pointless the reason (that I briefly touched on earlier) for clarifying definitions here. So you can stop stomping your feet now. We can hear what you’re saying; we’re just ignoring it because it’s beside the point.

The irony here is that you’re accusing me of something that I too find counterproductive, as you will see in my post to Banjo Paterson.

On a final note, your pointing out of my list of sociological perspectives as an example of navel gazing is misplaced, too, as it is not possible to understand the broader view of society without analysing it and contrasting it from multiple perspectives, and assessing each perspectives' strengths and weaknesses.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

It’s not that you’re not capable of understanding this. I think it’s just that you don’t want to, and you allude to this at the end of your response to me.

<<Your example of a rock is a good place to start. I see four major differences between a rock and a concept … I am also very wary of the notion of the absolute. I doubt that there is such a thing.>>

So am I and so do I. But we’re not talking about “things”, we’re talking about concepts that we apply to things in order to make sense of them; concepts that abide by laws of logic that apply whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them. These are not prescriptive laws, they’re descriptive laws that describe the nature of reality. So your contrasting between a physical object, and a concept that exists in our heads, suggests that you are still missing the point.

If our conceptualising of such ideas was necessary for the physical world to abide by them, then the world before and after us could have been, and might be, a very strange place indeed. Such an idea sounds almost “solopsistic”.

<<I see it as purely theoretical, unrealistic, unattainable, non-existent, a figment of the imagination.>>

They’re descriptive. Nothing I have said should suggest they are things or goals, so I don’t know where you get this from. You seem to be invoking a spiritual notion that we are all one.

<<I should even go so far as to say that It rings of ecclesiastical overtones. It evokes the transcendental, the supernatural.>>

It’s been used for such purposes, but a good take down of that can be found at http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Transcendental_argument. Ironically, I was sensing ecclesiastical overtones in your position; things are what they are because of what they’re not and nothing is neither or both, and I don’t see how a third option could be brought about without invoking the mystical.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I guess the “logical” answer to [how it is possible to simultaneously not be a theist, and not not be a theist], based on what I have just written, is that I refuse the “tyranny” of the “logical absolutes” concept and choose to exercise my free will.>>

That doesn't make you both, and nor do I see how it's a valid third option. All you seem to be saying is that you don’t like the idea of logical absolutes and, therefore, refuse to acknowledge them. Logical absolutes don’t restrict your free will either; they are not goals or actions (though there are many things that do restrict your free will, such as the complex interplay between your physiology and environmental factors).

By the same token, I could say that I’m not a human being because I refuse the tyranny of labels. That doesn’t change reality. I could further ask, “But what is a human?” or even, “But what *is*?” We can bring into question anything if we get philosophical enough (in fact, some theists do this to open the door to the possibility of their god(s)), but if we’re going to do that, then we all may as well throw our hands in the air, pack up, and go home now.

There’s an inconsistency here, on your behalf, because you’re fine with the idea of a square not being able to be a circle, but you take exception to logical absolutes in this instance.

In fact, your whole argument is self-defeating because - being a foundational principal - the assumption that logical absolutes are valid, to demonstrate that they're not, demonstrates that they're valid.

<<I see no “logic” in defining myself by reference to something which I consider does not exist.>>

God might not exist but theists do and you’re not one of them.

What a treasure of wisdom, Foxy - Thank you for this link!

AJ: as it is not possible to understand the broader view of society without analysing it and contrasting it from multiple perspectives, and assessing each perspectives' strengths and weaknesses.

Well you have just proved my point. The only people that do "that" are Navel Gazing Philosophers caught in a mirror Maze. It doesn't have anything to do with the "Ordinary person in the Street." view on "The meaning of Life."

But you are right. It was rude of me to make fun of someone's Profession. As my Tee shirts say, "You may find it objectionable, I find it funny. That's why I'm happier than you." & "If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll do it for you." I'm an extremely happy person. I laugh all day, non-stop, at what I observe happening around me. I get a kick out of the [Deleted for bad language] I see around me. & I'm a good atheist, too.

Some will take a view that ethics need to be complicated with wise sounding wordings that make them feel better. For me they generally do not - as they can be very elitist.

They are a set of letters, to read out nicely like poetry - but it doesn't show that they mean much.

Ethics can be as simple as walking into a supermarket. I don't eat meat. I took that up as a high school project. I only buy free range eggs. I keep waste and packaging to a minimum when I shop to reduce waste and protect our environment. I utilise my local library and I don't buy new books.

I know it sounds boring and lifeless to many - but I am thinking about something - all of the time - and this flows through me onto other parts of society.

To explain this, one time I had the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints come to my front door.

I said 'I see the whole world as a church'. That is why I don't go. You don't need to be in a physical building for that - and you can still believe what you like. I do and I went to a Christian High School, but believe in a balance of the bible and science.

The ability to stand up and articulate a sound set of reasons for pursuing a course of action is well worth having - but we should consider our own words and set of values created - not simply reciting the values or words of others.

Yuyutsu,

".....worship brings humility.
Humility helps to break the bonds of the ego...."

Yes - I understand that.

"Yes, our bodies and minds are fragile, but that's a different story."

I was referring to our bodily presence and our mind's grasping that it is one of fragility - but you knew that.

So man, in his realisation of his puniness amidst the natural world, woundn't resort to projecting certain qualities onto an all powerful deity for protection and comfort?

So you worship, for humility's sake, a God that you say does not exist...even as a notion or concept?

..........

Jayb,

".... [Deleted- see above]......"

Thanks for gracing this forum - so do we!

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote :

« It’s not that you’re not capable of understanding this. I think it’s just that you don’t want to »

You just hit the nail on the head, AJ. That is the crux of the problem. But it is not that I do not want to understand. I arrived at an understanding right from the start, but my immediate reaction was that the concept was invalid.

Only too conscious of my modest station in life as a blithering neophyte in just about every intellectual domain imaginable (no formal education after the age of thirteen), I had serious doubts about my understanding - particularly since you, a declared atheist and highly articulate logician, clearly considered the concept to be valid. So I continued to doubt and even questioned my ability to understand.

But whichever way I examined the concept, it was in contradiction with everything I had understood about life and the universe up to that point : that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that everything in the universe is relative, and that human logic has its limitations.

I do not pretend to have a totally independent and unbiased mind but I do my best to choose my influences as carefully as I can (which is why I was wary of formal education). Bertrand Russell is one of those influences in whom I have a certain amount of confidence. I just googled “Bertrand Russell and logical absolutes” which found 6,070,000 results. One of those was :

http://www.carneross.com/blog/2011/01/02/mathematical-proof-pluralism-apologies-wittgenstein-and-godel

In this article, the author examines Bertrand Russell's life-long quest to understand the nature of truth and indicates :

« … it’s worth taking a quiet moment to remember two men who proved, mathematically, that there was no such thing as absolute and complete truth. Kurt Gödel and Ludwig Wittgenstein are rightly renowned in the esoteric worlds of logic and philosophy. But although their intent was never overtly political, their work has a deep political significance. In a way, these two logicians proved the logical necessity of pluralism »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I am personally incapable of assessing the value of the article but, as it is a question of “proof” (a term which George is notoriously allergic to) by mathematics, I suspect that he could, perhaps, throw some light on the subject.

Also, I must confess I have difficulty understanding your statement :

« … concepts that abide by laws of logic that apply whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them. These are not prescriptive laws, they’re descriptive laws that describe the nature of reality »

Please excuse me if this sounds silly, but I initially presumed that the “laws of logic” you were referring to were the laws of “human” logic. Which is why I could not understand how they could possibly exist if there were no “humans” (“whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them”). Nor could I understand how such “laws” could be “descriptive” if there was nobody around to do the “describing” or to perceive the “description”.

It took me a long time to realize that there may possibly be another interpretation of your expression, i.e., that the “laws of logic” you were referring to were, in fact, the “laws of nature”, the word “logic” being understood in the sense of its Greek origin, “logos” – (a) the rational principle that governs and develops the universe, or (b) the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ (John1:1–14).

Obviously, as you are a declared atheist, the possibility that you are referring to so-called “divine logic” is to be excluded.

And as you refer to “concepts that abide by laws of logic that apply whether or not we’re around to conceptualise them”, in this latter hypothesis, it would appear that you are, in fact, referring to “human concepts that abide by the laws of nature which apply independently of the existence of mankind”.

If, as I suspect, that is what you really meant, it would have been helpful if you had expressed it in such clear, simple terms right from the start.

.

Perhaps this could explain what AJP had in mind when referring to logical absolutes:
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/.

Dear Poirot,

<<So man, in his realisation of his puniness amidst the natural world, woundn't resort to projecting certain qualities onto an all powerful deity for protection and comfort?>>

Men (and women) do all sorts of things for all kinds of reasons, but that's got nothing to do with religion, this sounds more like tribalism.

Had God existed, then such projections would constitute a business-like, give-and-take relationship with Him - which is essentially selfish, not religious.

<<So you worship, for humility's sake, a God that you say does not exist...even as a notion or concept?>>

This is one reason.
I also worship because it purifies my heart.
I also worship because it is good to worship, as it says in Psalm 92: "It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to your name, O most high. To proclaim your love in the morning and your truth in the watches of the night".
I also worship God simply because I love Him.

Are you aware perchance that worshipping God as "Father" is not the only way?
You may be interested in reading this excellent summary - http://www.wicca-spirituality.com/relationship-with-divine.html

.

Dear George,

.

Many thanks for the link to that clear and simple explanation of so-called “logical absolutes”. Now that I know what they are I can try to make some intelligent comments about them.

Though brief, your contribution to the discussion is quite significant. Quote :

« Perhaps this could explain what AJP had in mind when referring to logical absolutes:
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/. »

It is evident that as an eminent university professor of pure mathematics, you would have been familiar with so-called “logical absolutes” had they existed in mathematics. Apparently, they do not.

If, indeed, they do not apply to the logical system of mathematics then they can’t be “absolute” or “universal”. Their “absolutism” or “universality” must be limited to a particular logical system other than that of mathematics.

There is little doubt in my mind that whoever coined the term “logical absolutes” was probably a theist. I consider that there is no such thing as the “absolute”. It is a notion which evokes the transcendental, the supernatural. As such it is tendentious and, therefore, probably has no place in logic.

I suggest that “logical consistency” would have been less tendentious and, perhaps, a more appropriate term.

In the same manner that I find the term “absolute” unacceptable in the definition of a concept of logic, I also find the terms “law” and “true” equally unacceptable.

Instead of the term “law”, I prefer the term “axiom”, i.e., “a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it”. The three axioms in the definition of so-called “logical absolutes” are not, strictly speaking, laws. They are conventions.

The same applies for the term “true”. Nothing is absolutely or universally true. Everything in the universe is relative. There are as many truths as there are observers, even if they all happen to coincide and accord in some instances and in certain circumstances. There is no guarantee that they will coincide and accord in all instances and in all circumstances.

Instead of “true”, I prefer the terms exact, correct or accurate.

.

I can't imagine wanting to be a "good" atheist, or a "good" anything else for that matter.

I have no problem with who or what I am.

I have no need for a crutch to lean on in this life.

I have no problem deciding right from wrong, & I need no moral guidance.

I will decide my future & my mode of life.

I will help anyone, who asks for help, nicely. I will not respond to anyone's demands.

I will fit in with society, provided society makes no unacceptable demands.

When I think of people who belong to a creed I have no objection, & believe it must be the best way for most, but I can't help thinking of that add for Carnation tinned milk, as the add said, "the milk from MMMOOO contented cows". Probably as good a way to go as any other.

Dear Banjo,

Please note that I just suggested an explanation of a terminology in (classical, pre-symbolic) logic as I - or anybody - could google it out. I personally would not use it, neither is this terminology being used explicitly in mathematics (implicitly of course, as in any rational discourse). It is up to AJ Philips to tell you whether this is what he had in mind. As it stands, it certainly has nothing to do with theism or atheism as AJ Philips will confirm.

You might object to the noun “absolutes” when used in a philosophical context, as many do. However, the adjective “absolute” is being used in many contexts - e.g. you could not get far in high school mathematics without the concept of the absolute value of a real or complex number - and again it has nothing to do with philosophical absolutes. The same with “true” and “false” when used in symbolic logic (c.f. “truth tables”) that also your computer understands, and essentially no computer programme could do without.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« You might object to the noun “absolutes” ... the adjective “absolute” is being used in many contexts - e.g. you could not get far in high school mathematics without the concept of the absolute value of a real or complex number … same with “true” and “false” when used in symbolic logic (c.f. “truth tables”) that also your computer understands, and essentially no computer programme could do without. »

As the English physicist, James Hopwood Jeans, observed :

« All the pictures which science now draws of nature and which alone seem capable of according with observational fact are mathematical pictures…From the intrinsic evidence of his creation, the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician. »

Unfortunately, the terms “absolute”, “true” and “false” are not “neutral” in essence but tainted by ecclesiastical overtones. The emancipation of science from the authority of religion has been a long and tedious struggle, perhaps not yet fully completed. There are still traces of religion in many of the terms employed by mathematics and science.

The term “absolute”, for example, finds its origin in the Latin “absolvere” to absolve, meaning “to free from guilt or blame, to grant or pronounce remission of sins”. The term “true” derives from “trow” (before 900) Middle English “trowen”, Old English “treow” to believe, derivative of treow belief; akin to Old Norse “trua”, German “trauen”, Gothic “trauan”, to trust, believe. The term “false” derives from the Latin “fallere” to deceive.

As indicated previously, instead of “absolute” I suggest “consistent”, instead of “true”, I prefer the terms exact, correct or accurate, and inexact, incorrect or inaccurate instead of “false”.

In an interview in City Limits in London in 1988, the American author, Harry Mathews is quoted as having declared on the subject of language :

« Syntax and vocabulary are overwhelming constraints—the rules that run us. Language is using us to talk—we think we're using the language, but language is doing the thinking, we're its slavish agents »

.

Dear Banjo,

I do not think it would be very helpful if we tried to rename concepts in general use just because for somebody the syntax of the original name reminds him of something he doesn’t like. When I first came to Paris half a century ago I thought Hôtel de Ville was the hotel where the devil stayed when he visited Paris (:-)). Should I have therefore suggested the French change their name for the Paris “Town Hall”?

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

" When I first came to Paris half a century ago I thought Hôtel de Ville was the hotel where the devil stayed when he visited Paris "

I do not see that as a problem of language in the sense of my previous post. The french word "ville" derives from the Latin "villa" which designates an agricultural property, a farm or a country village. It has no religious overtones relating to the devil.

Would you kindly explain the connection you see ?

I agree thet it is unrealistic to imagine that maths and science will, one day, be totally purged of terms originating from and alluding to religious dogma. But as it is, perhaps, impossible to think without words, we should be aware of the fact that our scientiste and, perhaps to a lesser extent, our mathematicians, are thinking at least in part, "under religious influence".

.

Dear Banjo,
>>Would you kindly explain the connection you see ?<<

Hôtel de Ville has as much to do with the devil as do e.g. absolute values (in mathematics) and truth tables (in symbolic logic) with “ecclesiastical overtones” or “religious dogma”. That was all. The devil came into it because of its phonetic closeness to de Ville.

If you mean that our Western culture is unthinkable without its Christian (and Hebrew and Greek) roots, which is reflected also in the etymology of many words used to describe abstract concepts intrinsic to our culture, I agree.

Also, atheist (as well as theist) scientists or mathematicians who use such standard in their field terminology would not be happy with the accusation that they are doing their profession "under religious influence". Neither is, I presume, AJ Philips.

Jayb,

There are many areas of the real world where sociological studies are used: politics, medicine, law, marketing, urban organization, city development, homeland security. So sociology has everything to do with the "ordinary person in the street". The "ordinary person in the street" also doesn’t give much thought to medical studies or the development of technology, but that doesn’t make such studies meaningless and nor does it render them “navel gazing”.

I’ve never accused someone of “navel gazing”, but I get the feeling that it’s a term used by people too uneducated to understand what others are talking about.

By the way, I find it flattering that you would mistake me for a professional philosopher. I would love to be that intelligent.

George,

Thanks for the link. It’s precisely what I’m talking about. I had a quick look for webpages that talked about logical absolutes but couldn’t find anything. In hindsight, I think I was too focussed on finding a Wikipedia link, of which there appears to be none. Your contributions to the discussion over the weekend were good too. They’ve helped me to re-calibrate what I’m on about here and have articulated some points that I wouldn’t have been able to communicate so effectively.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I’m certainly no logician. My occasional fumbling is probably the cause of some of your confusion. Yes, in hindsight, it probably would have been better if I had said “laws of nature”, but I wasn’t referring to natural phenomena, so I avoided it.

Continued…

...Continued

At the same time, though, I think you may be getting a little too hung up on the word “absolute”. As George points out, “absolute” is an adjective that can be used in many contexts. You seem to be over analysing things. For example, rather than simply stating a third option to theism and atheism, or explaining how one could be both, or explaining how one could be more theist than theist and more atheist than atheist, you’ve gone off on a tangent and questioned the notion of absolute. I could have referred to logical absolutes as “logical binaries” and it probably wouldn’t have attracted the same reaction, even though it essentially means the same thing. We can call them that, if you prefer.

While I don’t like the idea of absolutes on a philosophical level either, I’m happy to entertain the concept on a more practical level; we all do this implicitly in rational discourse. On a deeply philosophical level, you could open the door to the possibility of anything; I could argue that I’m a brain in a vat and the entire universe is the creation of my mind - no-one here really exists. But whether or not that’s true doesn’t matter because that’s not the world that I directly experience. Imagine how irritating it would be if every, “Yeah, I know”, that you uttered was met with a, “Ah, but do you *really* know? What does it mean to know?”

I tried to simplify things by saying: “things are what they are because of what they’re not and nothing is neither or both”. An even more simplified version of this can be found at the webpage George linked to: A=A. I don’t see where questioning absolutes gets anyone when discussing this.

Anyway, now that you seem to understand what I meant, perhaps you may accept my point regarding theism and atheism?

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You ask :

« Anyway, now that you seem to understand what I meant, perhaps you may accept my point regarding theism and atheism? »

Despite my sincere desire to please you, AJ, I am afraid I have to reply by the negative to that question.

As the American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, observed :

« Any reductionist program has to be based on an analysis of what is to be reduced. If the analysis leaves something out, the problem will be falsely
posed »

I consider “theism and atheism” to be a false dichotomy. The problem is falsely posed. First there was man, not theism. That concept came later. The theists should be compared to the rest of mankind, not the other way round. If there is a need for a dichotomy in this domain, the relationship should be expressed correctly, i.e., theism as a deviation from the norm. People are not born theists.

I consider myself to be “a very ordinary person”. I have no difficulty accepting the idea that those persons who believe in the theist concept wish to adopt a new appellation in order to distinguish themselves from “very ordinary persons” such as myself. On the contrary, I am happy for them to adopt the label of their choice. However, I see no reason why I should change mine or that it should be changed for me.

I was baptised shortly after my birth, and George tells me that, according to Christian dogma, that makes me a Christian for the rest of my life. Obviously I had no say in it. Who is it now to tell me I have no other choice than theism or atheism. Human logic ? So-called “logical absolutes” ? That, to me, is intellectual tyranny. Concepts can prove erroneous and be replaced by new concepts. Humanity advances by trial and error.

I oppose my free will and intelligence to what I consider to be the false dichotomy of theism and atheism. I suggest that “normality and theism” or, perhaps, “realism and delusion” would be more appropriate.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You kindly explained :

« The devil came into it because of its phonetic closeness to de Ville »

I always enjoy your jokes, George, but, as you must have already noticed, I don’t always get it straight away. Not much of an IQ I’m afraid.

I am pleased to see that, even if we don’t all agree with everything we are saying here, at least we all finally seem to understand each other. And that’s no small achievement !

.

.

Dear AJ Philips & George,

.

There is, of course, a third combination that comes to mind (though I am open to any further suggestions you may like to make) :

realism and theism

Perhaps this may be more palatable to George. If I had not hit my 350 word limit I should have added it to my previous post to AJ.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

It appears we have now come full circle. I think you know what I’m talking about but are weaving all over the place to avoid understanding it.

<<I consider “theism and atheism” to be a false dichotomy. The problem is falsely posed. First there was man, not theism. That concept came later.>>

The, problem involves two conditions: theist or not a theist. The issue of which one came first is irrelevant.

<<The theists should be compared to the rest of mankind, not the other way round. If there is a need for a dichotomy in this domain, the relationship should be expressed correctly, i.e., theism as a deviation from the norm. People are not born theists.>>

Who deviates from whom is also irrelevant. People are not born teapotists either, but you probably wouldn’t have a problem with being labeled an “a-teapotist”. According to your logic, we are wrong to refer to asexual reproduction as such because it came first (and we deviated from asexual reproduction), but I’d doubt you’d have a problem with that. Thus, when you present arguments like the above, it comes across as disingenuous because ‘which came first’ is not your problem and this can be demonstrated by pointing out the inconsistencies in your logic.

If you consider atheism to be some sort of a millstone to be carried around your neck, then it’s a wonder that you can ever move given the infinite number of other things that you are not.

<<I consider myself to be “a very ordinary person”.>>

There is more intellectual tyranny in this than there is in ‘atheism’ because it’s a positive description of what you are and not just what you’re not. To add another layer of complexity and tyranny, it contains the highly subjective adjective of “ordinary”.

Continued…

...Continued

<<However, I see no reason why I should change [my label] or that it should be changed for me.>>

Again, though, the label says nothing about who you are as a person. So it seems a little neurotic to be worrying about it when all it says is what you would proudly say about yourself: that you are not a theist. What is wrong with having a label applied to you that makes no attempt to describe who you as an individual? Your claim of “intellectual tyranny“ is misplaced; atheism says nothing about what you do believe, only about what you don’t (and this is what you seem to be trying desperately to avoid acknowledging). If you consider this to be intellectually tyranny, then there may be a way to remedy it: figure out how you could be both at the same time while simultaneously being neither. You seem to think this is possible.

<<I oppose my free will and intelligence to what I consider to be the false dichotomy of theism and atheism. I suggest that “normality and theism” or, perhaps, “realism and delusion” would be more appropriate.>>

The irony here is painful. You have claimed that a legitimate dichotomy (i.e. theism and atheism) is false, and then present two (and later a third) that are false, as being legitimate dichotomies:

1) Normality and theism
This is a false dichotomy because an individual could be both not-a-theist and abnormal.

2) Realism and delusion
This is a false dichotomy because an individual could be both not-delusional and not-a-realist.

3) Realism and theism
This is a false dichotomy because an individual could be both not-delusional and not-a-realist.

In addition to the above, each one is heavily loaded with assumptions about what constitutes delusion, realism and normality, and as you would point out: everything is relative. Furthermore, the adjectives ‘normal’ and ‘realist’ make positive assumptions about who an individual is, whereas atheism only describes what an individual isn’t. So again, your concern about the “intellectual tyranny” of atheism as a label comes across as either disingenuous or intellectually inconsistent.

Sorry to bombard you with a third post, BP, but I need to nip this in the bud and l have a spare moment now.

There was a lot of text in my last response, so I'll sum things up in case my point gets lost in it all.

You claim that having the label of atheism applied to you is "intellectual tyranny" and feel that it places limits on your free will, yet you offer substitutes such as 'normal' and 'realist'.

Let's be clear here, there are an infinite amount of things that you are not, and only a finite amount of things that you are. Atheism adds an infinitesimally small amount to who you are as an individual and only prevents you from being one thing: a theist. Attributes such as 'normal' and 'realist', on the other hand, add a measurable amount to who you are and prevent you from being an infinite amount of other things. ‘Atheist’ is, therefore, a label that describes infinitely less about you than 'normal' or 'realist' does.

Yet despite the above, you claim that it is atheism that is the intellectually tyrannical descriptor that would place limits on your free will, were you to acknowledge it?! I’m sorry, but no matter which angle you approach it from, this is simply false on every possible level.

There is a reason that you have a problem with ‘atheism’ as label, and I don’t think even you know what that is. One thing is for sure, though, and that is that is isn’t, nay, cannot be for the reasons that you have stated.

On a final note, I'd just like to say that I don't mean to force a label on you. If you're just not comfortable with the term, then that's fine. But you are making claims about the term that are demonstrably false, and that's what I'm arguing against.

.
 
Dear AJ Philips,
 
.
 
Thank you for your patience. I too shall try to take another bite at the apple.

You are right: the problem is one of identity.

I agree that some form of identity (label) is necessary for practical reasons, which is why I accept to be considered “a very ordinary person”. However I am averse to identity because I see it as inversely proportional to freedom. Hence my reference to “intellectual tyranny” as an attempt to fence me in or out of something. A label is a label whether it is negative or positive. I see it as a menace to what little “existentialist” freedom I might possibly have.

"Normal" and "realist" are simply less worse than the rest.

If the “laws” of logic impose an infinity of negative labels, as you suggest, then logic has gone mad. It makes no sense. If everything has a label, that should be sufficient to distinguish it from everything else. If we define a frog as a frog and a horse as a horse, I see no sense in labelling a frog a [not-“horse”] and a horse a [not-“frog”].

If we define a theist as a theist and a very ordinary person as a very ordinary person, I see no sense in labelling a theist a [not-“very ordinary person”] and a very ordinary person a [not-“theist”] or an “atheist”. At most, all we need is greater precision in defining the terms we employ in order to respect the “law of excluded middle” ("that a statement is either true or false but it cannot be both").

There is no theism in nature. Theism is not a law of nature. None of the 7.3 billion people on earth were born as theists but as “very ordinary people”. Theism is a human concept which is spoon-fed to the offspring of successive generations by society. It derives from nurture, not nature It is a deviation from nature. Theists should probably be defined as “out of the ordinary”.

It may not be logic but I hope it makes sense.

.
 

Dear Banjo Paterson,

<<However I am averse to identity because I see it as inversely proportional to freedom.>>

This could be argued both ways. I suspect people in North Korea would find an identity very liberating.

<<If the “laws” of logic impose an infinity of negative labels, as you suggest, then logic has gone mad.>>

I don’t think the laws of logic suggest that. I was simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of classing the label of ‘atheist’ (a negative attribute) as intellectually tyrannical while happily accepting the label of ‘realist’ (a positive attribute). Whether or not the amount of things that we are ‘not’ is infinite, there can be no denying that it’s immensely greater than the number of things that we ‘are’. In either case, my point remains the same.

You are erroneously conflating explicit labelling with implicit labelling. See the following, for example...

<<If everything has a label, that should be sufficient to distinguish it from everything else. If we define a frog as a frog and a horse as a horse, I see no sense in labelling a frog a [not-“horse”] and a horse a [not-“frog”].>>

But there’s a difference between an atheist not actively labelling themselves an atheist (or not wishing to), and insisting that they’re not an atheist. While we don’t label a horse a “not-frog”, it would be absurd to suggest that a horse isn’t ‘not a frog’. You seem to be doing the latter.

You initially said, “Happily, the qualities you mention are not just limited to theists and atheists.” This implies that there is a third option. Had you instead said, “I prefer not to identify as either”, then there’d be nothing argue.

<<If we define a theist as a theist and a very ordinary person as a very ordinary person …>>

You’re starting with a false dichotomy by assuming that a theist and a ”very ordinary person” are mutually exclusive. Why is it that a theist cannot also be a ”very ordinary person”? “Ordinary person” is a fluid concept.

Continued…

...Continued

You even said earlier that, “[c]oncepts can prove erroneous and be replaced by new concepts”, yet here you are trying to substitute a concept that is immune to such fluidity (i.e. atheism) with a term that is utterly vulnerable to it and even dependent on it for its very meaning!

<<... I see no sense in labelling a theist a [not-“very ordinary person”] …>>

That’s because we already have a term for it: theist.

<<... and a very ordinary person a [not-“theist”] or an “atheist”.>>

This, on the other hand, is different because we wouldn’t have a term for, what you are referring to as a “very ordinary person”, without “atheist”. You even agreed earlier that “some form of identity (label) is necessary for practical reasons”. Now you’re arguing that it’s not by using the highly subjective claim that those who aren’t theists are “very ordinary people”.

<<[Theism] derives from nurture, not nature It is a deviation from nature. Theists should probably be defined as “out of the ordinary”.>>

As someone who has studied a couple of subjects on evolutionary psychology, I can assure you that religion is arguably a very natural phenomenon. Nothing that humans do is purely a result of nature or nurture. The nature/nurture debate is over. What *is* debated is exactly how these two interact with each other to produce the behaviours that they do.

I should probably also point out, BP, that you are switching back and forth between labelling and defining. You say that “[t]heists should probably be defined as “out of the ordinary””, but we’re not talking about definitions, only labels. This, and your conflating of implicit and explicit labels, is how you have given your argument the appearance of still being alive, despite the fact that it really is dead in the water.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You really are a remarkable intellectual contortionist, AJ. You literally dazzle me with all those acrobatic feats up there on the high ropes. I can’t follow you way up there. I don’t like heights. I like to keep my feet on the ground. I think I’ll throw the towel in and surrender.

I’ll discreetly slip out from under the big top and let you take the final round of applause.

Just one last plunge before I go …

You kindly reminded me :

« You initially said, “Happily, the qualities you mention are not just limited to theists and atheists.” This implies that there is a third option »

Not a third option. A third dimension. I consider that the totality of human nature, in all its complexity, cannot be reduced to the simple dichotomy “theists and atheists”. I see that unidimensional, “binary” division of mankind as overly simplistic. It is not that particular aspect of human beings (whether they are theists or atheists) which I consider to be significative of the qualities which had been evoked by ConservativeHippie (page 9 of this thread) : those of forgiveness and tolerance.

Perhaps another dichotomy, such as “humanist and idealist”, may have more relevance to the qualities in question.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Binary labelling may correspond to a certain type of logic but, in my view, it is too simplistic to correctly reflect the subtleties and complexities of reality. It may not make sense. It could be misleading or even dangerous.

It sacrifices sense and significance for the benefit of logical method.

It seems to me that that is a high price to pay. A bit too high for a very ordinary person such as myself.

.