Atheist!

[Kev H]

This statement is not the same as; Because you are trying to dictate my response...

Why is atheism your nagging question? I have very strong theories about why belief exists, however misguided. Why not address your inquiries in that direction?

I don't get why you think I'm trying to dictate your response (you said this in quote my question that went "why not do this?"). Is asking a question ("why not say this instead?") and hoping for a response ("why not? because...") somehow dictating your response? It's not intended, but I'm now thinking I'll get no direct answers from you, Stella (even after I directly answered your questions, you refuse to respond in kind; disappointing). If you'd like to share answers and experiences in PM, I'd welcome them. But if you only care about being defensive and trying to make others join you in a mental chess game, then you've lost a potential conversation partner (not that you're likely to place any value on that).

Honestly, Stella, I've had many deep conversations with people of differing faiths (Shan being one, I am happy to say), and they have far less interest in heading me off at the pass (as I feel you try to do; instinctively, perhaps). But that's not who this thread is about, now is it? I was asking about atheism, and you volunteered to be the combative example. (That should again answer one of your questions to me.)



---->To other posters:


I still would love to know what lets atheists disbelieve in any god and be satisfied with that stance. If you think scientific advances are the sole cause of this revelation, then fine. I'll buy that if you can explain it (especially in light of all we don't know yet). In a way, I see amicus' rational approach as neatly defined (and far more flexible than a religious response in terms of ability to be discussed/pondered, and more constructive than an anger/defensive response). If you claim it's a fury/dissatisfaction mix, then sure, I can fathom that, though I'd like to know why that would preclude a searching-for-answers mode (does it?).

Do you feel that most atheists arrive at their pledged disbelief through similar means--my suspicion is they are so fiercely independent that they cannot agree on anything more than the basic definition (which Stella stated a couple of times very clearly). Is that wrong? Is there a shared methodology that can be studied/digested?

 

[Kev H]

Yep. I happen to believe some things that keep me from being an athiest--but the beliefs I have keep me from being pigeonholed otherwise too. I'm just not going to pretend to believe something that I consciously don't really believe.

And I can certainly understand why someone's beliefs would lead them to athieism--for reasons they can't control or bend if they are going to be honest with themselves.

That's their business, not mine.

Hey there, sr. Might I ask what beliefs keep you from being satisfied with labeling yourself an atheist, or will that make you pull a Stella on me? (If so, then forget I even asked about asking, heh.) I will respect a "that's private and I don't want to share" answer, but I thought I'd ask just in case you felt like sharing. I certainly understand and respect your intellectual honest with yourself (the "I'm not going to pretend to believe..."), and it's sad that this isn't universal among us humans. Perhaps if we evolve further (who am I kidding, right?).

Most interesting is your saying that you can see how people can become atheists (that their beliefs would lead them there). Can you please expound?

Also with your post before this, you say something to the effect of "you either believe or you don't" as if that's one of the logical points, as if one must make up his mind and choose a side. Where do you place the seeker, those who say "until I know more, I am uncomfortable with either position"?

 

[DeeZire]

I still would love to know what lets atheists disbelieve in any god and be satisfied with that stance.

You didn't read my post about Santa Claus? What's the point of this discussion if you're not going to read the responses?

Nevermind.

 

[Kev H]

You can't expect me to adapt a "more reasoned" approach when that approach would be unreasonable to me. As a kid I embraced the belief in Santa Claus. Then I grew out of it. Same thing happened with religion. To expect doubters to leave open the possibility of the existence of God would put them in the same position as accepting the possibility of Santa showing up next Christmas.

Please, give me some credit for my own convictions, which should not be judged against your perception of reality (or fantasy, as the case may be.)

How can a more reasoned approach seem less reasonable to you (unless you are a rebel and feel healthy snubbing your nose at "the man"--that's satisfying, of course, but hardly a method for gratifying life growth, I'd think--correct me if I'm missing something on this)? Not that I expect you to adopt anything.

And your Santa gig made me smile, but comparing Santa and a possible creator is a tiny bit disingenuous, right (think scale/complexity, for starters)? Can you even give me a comparison to belief/disbelief in God that has meaning? I don't necessarily expect atheists to not be atheists, but I really want to find out why they're atheists. Does it honestly all boil down to a reverse image of belief (and by extension, faith--is atheism merely anti-faith? Hopefully not, since I don't really have faith, by the strict definition, and I'm not quite comfortable calling myself an atheist)? Amicus would have a fit if you answered yes, I think, but don't let him scare you away from an honest answer.

I'd like to give you credit for your own convictions--what are they, if you don't mind answering? Are they well reasoned and definable? Where does my reality come into play--I'm asking questions here (and don't just listen to Stella--she's lying through her fingers!), not wanting to discredit anyone. I'm certain atheists have valid...disbeliefs (what word should I use here?); I just don't understand what they are.

 

[Kev H]

You didn't read my post about Santa Claus? What's the point of this discussion if you're not going to read the responses?

Nevermind.

Patience, Dee; I'm slow and tired. Wait for it...okay, now read.

 

[past_perfect]

~~~

I detect a tone. semantical and nit-picking, in your post that I do not appreciate.

One can postulate the fidelity of one's mate and perhaps that belief, or faith, in the expression of loyalty can even modify the behavior or each or both.

There exists a hierarchy of values, with human life being the fundamental one from which all other values, ethics and morals emerge.

Your question is oxymoronic in nature as you question whether the suspension of the focused mind, in preference to faith without evidence is a moral action. Once you accept the tenets of belief, morality then becomes a subjective and relative value and can be whatever you wish it to be.

Moral decisions can only be made in the context of a functioning mind exercizing choice and free will. Belief or faith nullifies the mind and depends upon emotions to make the decisions of ones life.

Your question is not valid.

Amicus...

My question was whether I understood you right. That was oxymoronic in nature? Invalid? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to criticize (yet) I am just trying to get your point. Your statements sound all a little outlandish to me, so I am trying very hard to see the connections you draw. As I said, would you have said, for me it is a rational decision in view of the current evidence (or lack thereof) to assume God does not exist, I could have followed - that is not a novel argument.

Ok, let me try to order your arguments a bit more in detail then and see where I draw the wrong conclusions from your statements.

Human beings have a set of values we call moral, in the light of which we can judge their actions. We may call this a code of conduct. Agreed.

Human beings should base their decisions (before action) on this code of conduct. Agreed.

Whether I believe something or not is a decision. Agreed.

And then I am losing you - are you claiming that rationality is a moral value? Otherwise I can't see the connection you are drawing.

 

[Kev H]

Okay, so;
"Atheism" means one thing; the lack of a god belief.

Since god belief is so intrinsic to almost the entire human race, it does become obvious, to those of us outside that system, that belief is an entity separate from what the belief refers to. It's nothing I, as an atheist feel any need to hold a conviction about. The moral system I adhere to-- different matter.

I'm not splitting hairs, promise! But, this definition is broader than your last one (I know because this one includes me, according to all the people who know me, and your last definition--disbelief in gods--did not include me). So hopefully you can see why I'd bring this up. I'm not unwilling to believe in the possibility of a god; I simply feel that all the man-made ones are irredeemably wrong--there's little chance of a God of the flood, or maker of hell to roast us non-believers, or one of divinity (holiness) who can't look upon evil (though he certainly created the concept and reality), etc. Heck, searching is the very act of lacking belief, is it not? Yet, that can be completely different than disbelieving. Make sense? Hopefully you won't get too upset when I reject the above quoted definition as inaccurate (you can assume it's for purely personal reasons, if you'd like).

 

[amicus]

Musing...for the moment as no questions or queries seem headed my way...for what it might be worth...

One perhaps should not shrug off belief and faith, regardless of the source, to quickly or easily, I think.

People, at one time, actually married each other in a Church, before friends and family, in a time honored ritual of acceptance for a new couple, a new family unit to be added to the sum of the lineage of both lines.

There are rituals for many things; Yule is one, Christmas to Christians, but that time when winter's darkest days hold sway and we yearn for longer days and warmer times. There has always been a Harvest season of sorts and early in the history of man the Equinox's were celebrated as a passage of time and birthdates remembered and death and funerals to honor those who leave.

I think not many will truly cast off faith, belief and customs that have been long in the making and do indeed, serve a purpose, in exchange for a purely intellectual satisfaction.

That does not address the matter of whether there is a Deity, a Supreme, all knowing being, but I dealt with that before in a manner that cannot be refuted.

Perhaps one should find a belief that one is comfortable with, that serves what needs one has for social compacts.

One should perhaps beware of adopting a faith that has too high a price for what is offered. I find the altruism of Christianity most dangerous as it requires the sacrifice of one's inner self, one's ego, one's manhood, to bow down forever to another, 'Father' figure to whom one owes obedience and service.

Of course there is the 800 pound demon in the room; life after death. Ceasing to exist is perchance the great unspoken fear of every human of an age to recognize that all things come and go, live and die.

As I said...musing...after reading the last several posts and finding nothing to really respond to.

amicus...

 

[Kev H]

My question was whether I understood you right. That was oxymoronic in nature? Invalid? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to criticize (yet) I am just trying to get your point. Your statements sound all a little outlandish to me, so I am trying very hard to see the connections you draw. As I said, would you have said, for me it is a rational decision in view of the current evidence (or lack thereof) to assume God does not exist, I could have followed - that is not a novel argument.

Ok, let me try to order your arguments a bit more in detail then and see where I draw the wrong conclusions from your statements.

Human beings have a set of values we call moral, in the light of which we can judge their actions. We may call this a code of conduct. Agreed.

Human beings should base their decisions (before action) on this code of conduct. Agreed.

Whether I believe something or not is a decision. Agreed.

And then I am losing you - are you claiming that rationality is a moral value? Otherwise I can't see the connection you are drawing.

I think he has stated in the past that rationality is at the root of good (how else could you arrive at objective truths without the proper tool of rationality?). So, I certainly see him making this connection, and I think it's fairly stable.

For example, let's say I believe in a god that loves human sacrifice (not a stretch, eh?). This belief allows me to ignore a fellow human's right to his/her life. I can take it from them because my god demands it (and hey, we need a good harvest, damn it!). Nothing wrong with most modern thinking in calling this wrong, because the reality-bending actions are chilling to the rational person.

Only a rational mind can reject this and disprove its merits as an acceptable system. An irrational mind can justify it or any other heinous thing (inquisition, suicide cults, massive churches that prey on the financially gullible, evangelism, etc.). Only rationality can protect us from such ridiculous cases. I thank my rationality, because it keeps me from being gutted on an altar.

Now...if only I could fathom the jump from that to "therefore there is no god" as rational, I'd not be asking so many questions.

 

[amicus]

Past_Perfect: "...

Each action can be judged as moral or immoral. According to your following conclusions, I assume you think that believing is an action. Believing in something that cannot be proven or observed is therefore immoral. Is that the gist?..."

~~~

To believe in something that does not exist is irrational. I think I said earlier that ethics arises when one judges rational actions. To reject reason and adopt faith as the mechanism by which you determine ethical or moral action, is to signify that there are no moral or immoral actions, by definition thus, all things become amoral.

And there is not a 'gist' to it. My words are clear, the definitions and meanings are clear and I use simple language to make statements.

My fundamental philosophy is open and clear and understandable. It would be perhaps helpful if you stated yours so that we might compare where the agreements, if any, might lie and where we depart.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

First let's define this thing we do or do not believe in;

God;
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

# A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
___________________________

and now let's define atheism;
a; Latin prefix meaning without, e.g, arrhythmic (lack of rhythm, esp in heartbeat) amoral (without morals) asymptomatic (lack of symptoms esp in disease)
Theos, Latin, god.

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.
______________________

Okay?

Atheists do not believe in the gods or god defined above. Nor do atheists redefine anything else as "god" as so many 'spiritual' folk do; the cosmos, the life force, the Universe, nature; these things are already well-defined and stand on their own...

And that is what makes an atheist. Honest. There is no Church of Atheism, no secret handshake, no creed, or condition, or oath.

In my experience, there are three ways people come to atheism. One is a matter of belief, in a sense; I have never, ever believed in god, since my earliest recollection. I have never felt this to be a lack, by the way. There is no gaping hole where god is missing, yanno?

Another is reaction; I can give you the experiences of several people who were so profoundly embarrassed by the visible lies and hypocrisy they witnessed in church that they felt that everything else about that religion must be also a lie.

The third is reason; many atheists will tell you that the things their church told them simply made less and less sense.

And your Santa gig made me smile, but comparing Santa and a possible creator is a tiny bit disingenuous, right (think scale/complexity, for starters)? Can you even give me a comparison to belief/disbelief in God that has meaning?

Nope, that's about it... A disbelief regarding one non-existent being is no more or less complicated than a belief in a different non-existent being.
I don't believe in Santa, gods, the Tooth Fairy, vampires, or ghosts.

Where do you place the seeker, those who say "until I know more, I am uncomfortable with either position"?

That's someone who hasn't made their mind up. This person may come to an atheist position, or maybe find some other solution to the question.

(An agnostic is someone, by the way, who positively asserts that the truth about gods is unknowable.)

 

[Kev H]

Nature is very bleak and very judgmental; live or die, survive or perish. The means by which man survives and reigns supreme is due to one factor and one only, the rational mind.

Nature provides us with that mind but not necessarily the instruction on how to use it in a beneficial manner.

If you choose to function in life by abrogating the objective facility of the brain that you are given and choose instead to live with faith and belief, without logical proof or evidence to support your faith and belief, then you are destined to fail in all aspects of life as the rational function of the mind cannot be corrupted with faith. It will destroy you intellectually and psychologically.

Either rational, objective, focused thought using your mind or blind faith and belief which destroys the mind.

Do you see why it is and must be, either/or?

Amicus....

And finally I can get to your posts, amicus, saving the best of the recent posts until last. The post before this one (well the one addressed to me) talked about the amazing complexities of science and our astounding advancements in all the sciences (I, too, have longed to dig into the past rock strata to learn what's there). What I don't get is that we can glimpse of more and more complicated structures (and only the light of science reveals these, not some irrational belief--I truly agree), and you get no sense of awe in what we don't know yet (correct me if I'm wrong), only what we have found out. Isn't this a tad bit reactionary?

I realize this is the boundary of strict rationality, for all its good points, but we also have ample proof that that boundary is simply not enough for us human beings. Heh, now I certainly don't advocate pushing into vast irrationalities, how we reach and yearn is as much a part of us as the negative flip-side (our irrational fear of death and need to make answers). But isn't it more human to see all our advances and their complexity and marvel at what hasn't even been glimpsed of?

Allow me to give my own scientific example. Have you heard about the new material that bends light waves around it? Using the mind-boggling powers of superconducting, scientists have created a light material that effectively warps light rather than reflecting it. As science fiction as this sounds, the one could look directly at the material and "see" only what is behind it. Let your imagination chew on that one for a few...

We keep looking and we're bound to find ways to control the gravity between stars, and the energy that makes up the "space between," and...

Where in all that wonder does an idea that absolutely no god exist creep in?

-----

Sheesh, *chuckles*, now on to what I quoted above. I can't condone your sexism, btw, but most of your other arguments/observations are most rational and even fair--we know nature isn't fair; it just seems to be (though there are exceptions, but it's arguable whether or not they are worth noting). And to draw belief systems from these observations has been done in the past, and is certainly worthy of deep discussions.

I wish you would not jump to a hard-line stance that pits rationality against belief, as if they are two sides of the same coin. I understand that is fun for you to do (big statements are usually very entertaining, especially when they rile someone up), but they undermine your previous approach (measured and agreeable). What would you say if I claimed that belief isn't tied into rationality at all, but a possible acknowledgment of rationality to come, of future rationality, once our science or modern thinking has caught up. Can you honestly discount any possibility of that happening? Can you not see how one might be completely rational when he states, "I know I can't trust everything I can see, so how can I trust or distrust everything I cannot see?"

-----

This leads us into your latest musing post, which I enjoyed very much--thank you for posting it. I've benefited from many of those same musings after my own fashion. I cannot find it in myself to begrudge people their rituals (minus the ones like human sacrifices, for obvious reasons), and that extends to their need for faith, as strange as it often seems to me (someone who has a willingness to believe, yet has made peace with the rational rejection of a faith based on what others tell me is true in their books).

I think not many will truly cast off faith, belief and customs that have been long in the making and do indeed, serve a purpose, in exchange for a purely intellectual satisfaction.

No doubt about this, and do we even have an ounce of humanity is we wish them to cast off their faith?

That does not address the matter of whether there is a Deity, a Supreme, all knowing being, but I dealt with that before in a manner that cannot be refuted.

Please bear with me--where did you address this in such a way that it is no longer "on the table"? If it cannot be refuted in any rational way, then I honestly think I missed something important. We know the biblical god does not exist (we have literary evidence that the writers of the Hebrew Bible did not believe in its literalness either--a fantastic source of thought-knowledge is a textbook written by a Jewish scholar, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction--great reading if you can find a copy), but rationality keeps us from jumping to the conclusion that therefore all gods must not exist, shouldn't it?

Perhaps one should find a belief that one is comfortable with, that serves what needs one has for social compacts.

One should perhaps beware of adopting a faith that has too high a price for what is offered. I find the altruism of Christianity most dangerous as it requires the sacrifice of one's inner self, one's ego, one's manhood, to bow down forever to another, 'Father' figure to whom one owes obedience and service.

Of course there is the 800 pound demon in the room; life after death. Ceasing to exist is perchance the great unspoken fear of every human of an age to recognize that all things come and go, live and die.

I agree with this, and it merits quoting, to be sure. Religion is always "buyer beware," as has been stated elsewhere. In my less generous times, I tended to think the 800-pound gorilla you casually mention accounts for all those leaps of faith that lead to religious control (the dark side, heh), and perhaps it's still true, but perhaps not. Believers keep telling me there's something much more than that, and I keep seeking.

 

[amicus]

KevH:

"...Now...if only I could fathom the jump from that to "therefore there is no god" as rational, I'd not be asking so many questions..."

Not such a 'jump', Kev, as it is putting your ducks in order.

There is a branch of formal philosophy that deals with how man acquires knowledge. Basically it is that man observes reality through his senses, examines the evidence of each separate entity he discovers, compares the characteristics of these entities, notes their similarities and differences, then classifies them according to those chacteristics and groups them into what are called concepts.

That is the only method by which man learns.

One can postulate the existence of a supernatural being and search for the evidence to learn the nature of that Deity, but if no evidence is found, man is forced to conclude that the level of his knowledge does not encompass the existence of a deity.

Through the ages man began to learn the God does not control the rising and setting of the sun, nor does 'he' control the weather or pests, famine, drought, floods or any other natural occurence.

Man knows that because the human mind observed and learned the causes of all such phenomenon.

We prove the existence of 'things' by observing them and their characteristics and it has been the entire history of man accumulating such knowledge that has led to our current understandings of all things.

That 'jump' you consider is really not such a big one at all; it is merely a slow paced logical extension of knowledge focused on that aspect of human existence.

I think the reward is psychological sanity and a dismissal of most of the fears of man that an angry God might nudge him aside.

regards...

amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Believers keep telling me there's something much more than that, and I keep seeking.

It's the conviction that the next bottle of snake oil will really work as promised...

 

[Kev H]

Past_Perfect: "...

~~~

To believe in something that does not exist is irrational. I think I said earlier that ethics arises when one judges rational actions. To reject reason and adopt faith as the mechanism by which you determine ethical or moral action, is to signify that there are no moral or immoral actions, by definition thus, all things become amoral.

And there is not a 'gist' to it. My words are clear, the definitions and meanings are clear and I use simple language to make statements.

My fundamental philosophy is open and clear and understandable. It would be perhaps helpful if you stated yours so that we might compare where the agreements, if any, might lie and where we depart.

Amicus...

I agree, amicus, that your words are clear and concise, and I thank you for that. The problem lies in your initial value judgment (and this is only where we differ in this great statement of yours). I certainly agree that you blow morality out the window when it becomes arbitrary, this is wonderfully clear to me, and worth protecting. However, to arrive at your "god does not exist" assessment, you must make that judgment based on no sustanciatable evidence. Read your first sentence again carefully, please.

"To believe in something that does not exist is irrational." Given the context of this discussion, this implies you judge that god does not exist, and therefore believing in him is irrational. I say, it's perfectly logical that if god does not exist, then believing in him is irrational, and shouldn't be a part of anything that affects life/function on this planet (because then you get into a moral problem--we're definitely on the same page about that one). But again I follow up with another question: what makes you so sure god does not exist? Isn't it irrational to try and force god to not exist if he does?

In other words, I can suggest that "god might exist in some form or fashion, who gave us this precious gift of existence" without making any claims to what he does or doesn't expect (except, perhaps, from those I can observe in nature and history; for example, that god wants us to use the gifts we're given--cue Galileo's famous quote about "sense, reason, and intellect"). This keeps me away from the unsupportable value judgments (faith) that begin the immoral process of discerning "his" will (and then enforcing it on others). Does that make any sense at all? I certainly don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm hoping the more you understand what I'm thinking, the better you can answer my original questions about atheism.

 

[amicus]

An observation.

Most "believers" of whatever faith appear to think that atheism is some sort of extreme dogma. It is not. Atheists come to their point of view because they have a very clear understanding of the ethics which they live by. Given sufficient confidence in ones own ethical precepts religion simply becomes irrelevant.

Atheism has therefore a fundamentally moral origin and comes from within wheras religion is merely belief applied externally to the adherent for his (her) greater comfort. The absence of genuine individual freewill in all religious belief systems is their fundamental weakness.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Your 'observation' somehow got passed over, although I noted it and had all intentions of returning to it.

I think you make a most important point here, the rationality of atheism from a moral and ethical point of view.

I also think and offer that constructing an entire system of rational and objective ethical and moral premises is something very few ever attempt. The 'confidence in one;s own ethical precepts', is gained by the knowledge that those precepts have been acquired by learning and not by believing. If the learning has been carefully focused upon, excluding all contradictions and incongruencies, it does give one a 'certainty' that belief simply cannot match.

Thank you for your post...sorry it took so long to respond to.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

"...But again I follow up with another question: what makes you so sure god does not exist? Isn't it irrational to try and force god to not exist if he does?..."

~~~

I am going to take responsibility for my apparent inability to clearly make a point.

Man has been trying for as long as he has been writing to proveMan the existence of God by pointing to miracles, predictions, rising from the dead and perhaps the biggest 'closer' to the proofs, the two thousand year continuance of Christianity and the magnificent Cathedrals and rituals of the various churches.

Way back in this thread someone gave a personal testament to an observed miracle. Some believe in prayer and faith healing, the list is inexaustible.

The Periodic table of elements must seem like magic to many, especially when scientists can predict what the nature of the next element must be and actually create it under laboratory conditions. Mendel's work on heredity and the transferral of traits and characteristics from generation to generation could also be thought of as magic, but it is not.

Man can only determine the existence of something by the evidence it offers or leaves behind.

There is not a shred of evidence suggesting, in any way, the existence of a God. You add the, 'therefore', instead of me this time.

It is but a logical and rational conclusion that if no evidence exists then the postulated entity does not exist.

I watch the 'nerd' channels and I favor many things, among them astronomy and astrophysics. Fairly recent detection of a powerful source of energy detected (evidence), threatened to contradict Einstein's general theory of relativety and E=MC squared. I don't recall if it was many months or many years before a solution to the anomaly was determined. It had to do with energy bursts from certain sectors of the galaxy, they thought and then discovered it was far out to the outer reaches of the universe.

It turned out to be 'beamed energy' from Black Holes, deep in space, which, when measured, did remain within the definition of Einstein's equations.

Every single thing we know arises from observed evidence that man has detected and studied and finally understood.

There is no evidence, none, that supports the theory of the existence of a God. I know I repeat myself, but it is clear to me and I do not know any other way to say it.

That is why I can say with certainty and with reason and logic and rationality, that there is no God.

Since we have probed the deepest corners of the Universe, I cannot even 'fathom', to use your word, even the remote possibility that one day such evidence will appear. I consider beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You may not agree, but please, at least, tell me you understand my logic on this.

ami

 

[past_perfect]

Past_Perfect: "...

~~~

To believe in something that does not exist is irrational. I think I said earlier that ethics arises when one judges rational actions. To reject reason and adopt faith as the mechanism by which you determine ethical or moral action, is to signify that there are no moral or immoral actions, by definition thus, all things become amoral.

And there is not a 'gist' to it. My words are clear, the definitions and meanings are clear and I use simple language to make statements.

My fundamental philosophy is open and clear and understandable. It would be perhaps helpful if you stated yours so that we might compare where the agreements, if any, might lie and where we depart.

Amicus...

Ok, I can drop a few points Kev has already raised, and you fail to answer. Science has never attempted to prove or disprove God. It is simply not a discipline within sciences. Claiming that is has, is stating a belief.

Stella has provided a definition of God that might be useful for a discussion. If that is the concept you reject, that is a rational choice. I still don't comprehend where morals get into this, other than your claim that morality derives from rationality alone - which science contests (anthropology, sociology and psychology for instance).

My personal definition would be different and probably incomprehensible to most, for the simple reason that for me any concept of God would delimit and confine it to my limited understanding - something boundless, limitless and all-pervading cannot by definition be defined. Or in other words - how God is and what God is I do not know and I don't even care to speculate. That He is, is a working hypothesis for me. No more, no less. You might call it a belief, irrational in the sense of beyond rationality, certainly.

It seems to me that your problems arise from the assumption that if one does believe, rational thought is no longer possible in an unpolluted form. That is of course rubbish. Specific beliefs might do that, in specific religions, if used in lieu of rational thought. Or in certain faith-based philosophies. It's unfortunately all the same. As soon as you jiggle with absolutes, you left the realm of logic and enter the realm of faith.

My philosophy is based on the Freiburger School of Thought, following a line of Husserl, Heidegger and Rombach. Whereas Husserl and Heidegger started the discipline of phenomology, Rombach added another quality to it, describing reality as a structure rather than a system. I had started an abridged English translation of his main work "Structural Ontology", but had too many other things happening in my life to get my mind around to finish it (must have 3/4 ready though).

Suffice it to say that it is currently the dominant school of thought over here. As soon as I get to it, I will finish the translation and put it up on my website. My own work revolves around perception and consciousness. I am still working on definitions and a modification of Russell's system of logic. All that had to rest and be put on the backburner, because I am applying my own philosophy in my daily life and am currently taking care of my mum, who is suffering from Altzheimer's. I hope that answers your question as to my philosophical roots sufficiently.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My personal definition would be different and probably incomprehensible to most, for the simple reason that for me any concept of God would delimit and confine it to my limited understanding - something boundless, limitless and all-pervading cannot by definition be defined. Or in other words - how God is and what God is I do not know and I don't even care to speculate. That He is, is a working hypothesis for me. No more, no less. You might call it a belief, irrational in the sense of beyond rationality, certainly.

I gotta say-- this concept is the essence of meaninglessness to me...

 

[3113]

And that is what makes an atheist. Honest. There is no Church of Atheism, no secret handshake, no creed, or condition, or oath.

But there is a really cool lapel pin.

Exchanges ultra-secret-Atheist handshake with Stella.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But there is a really cool lapel pin.

Exchanges ultra-secret-Atheist handshake with Stella.

Never in public!

 

[past_perfect]

I gotta say-- this concept is the essence of meaninglessness to me...

Well, it isn't a concept, it's the negation of a concept or a non-concept. And I appreciate that it would be that to you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, it isn't a concept, it's the negation of a concept or a non-concept. And I appreciate that it would be that to you.

Yesh, it's me, not you.

but... you named this non-concept; "He". We just can't stop ourselves from trying to grab hold of the ineffable. It's human nature...

 

[sr71plt]

Yesh, it's me, not you.

but... you named this non-concept; "He". We just can't stop ourselves from trying to grab hold of the ineffable. It's human nature...

I was with PastPerfect until that "he" part. If it can't be defined, it can't be given a gender either, I don't think. But it's quite close to what I believe too--and I don't find it meaningless--just humbling and taking the ego out of the center of the universe. I must say that most the athiests I've known in the real world have been self-centered snots--and as pushy about what I can't believe as fundamentalist evangelists have been about what I have to believe.

 

[past_perfect]

Yesh, it's me, not you.

but... you named this non-concept; "He". We just can't stop ourselves from trying to grab hold of the ineffable. It's human nature...

More correct would be That. The He is of course a reference to my Christian origin - although my approach might be a little closer to Zen ( I have studied and taught Zazen and Yoga ), I found enough similarities to not define myself as a Christian anymore (hope my negations don't drive you crazy by now...).