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.