Religion

[Belinda]

Immanuel, as philosophers we think outside ideological stripes.

Philosophers can and do study the insights and facts from the social sciences which includes the minutiae of history and anthropology. Ideological stripes are of great interest to all and not only to the devotees of specific ideologies.

You yourself are of historical and anthropological interest

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, as philosophers we think outside ideological stripes.

Ah...so you think there's such a thing as an "outside of ideology" position?

Interesting. What would that "non-ideological" position be?

[Belinda]

Immanuel, as philosophers we think outside ideological stripes.

Ah...so you think there's such a thing as an "outside of ideology" position?

Interesting. What would that "non-ideological" position be?

Trying to be as objective as possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting. What would that "non-ideological" position be?

Trying to be as objective as possible.

Ah. You've got two escape phrases there: "trying," and "as possible."

But "trying" implies "not entirely succeeding," which implies there is NO non-ideological position -- and "as possible" reinforces that view. Given that, a person who believed he/she was actually IN such a position could only be self-deceived, having not realized he/she was only "trying" and it was not really totally "possible" at all.

So now you're advising self-deception? Surely not. Surely you must have a sense that some position is actually "objective." And all I'm asking is for you to identify that position.

[Belinda]

Interesting. What would that "non-ideological" position be?

Trying to be as objective as possible.

Ah. You've got two escape phrases there: "trying," and "as possible."

But "trying" implies "not entirely succeeding," which implies there is NO non-ideological position -- and "as possible" reinforces that view. Given that, a person who believed he/she was actually IN such a position could only be self-deceived, having not realized he/she was only "trying" and it was not really totally "possible" at all.

So now you're advising self-deception? Surely not. Surely you must have a sense that some position is actually "objective." And all I'm asking is for you to identify that position.

There is no stance which is not subjective. Ideologies are best regarded with suspicion. In place of ideologies it's better to think for oneself and be prepared to act from one's own convictions.

Acting from one's own convictions may involve one in self deception but this is not necessarily so. Self knowledge largely prevents self deception so that one's own self is one of the variables.

The stance that I prefer does let reason occupy the pole position. This may be considered as a weakness. However in support of reason you should be informed that reason depends upon human feeling without which the reasoning is defective.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no stance which is not subjective.

That being so, there is no non-ideological stance. And your suggestion that we owe it to become "objective" is impossible.

Ideologies are best regarded with suspicion.

Yes, fine: but how can one do that, without admitting one's own ideological position? For if one does not know what one's own ideological position is, one cannot possibly be "suspicious" of it: one does not even see it, but takes it entirely for granted, and assumes it to be perfectly "objective."

In place of ideologies it's better to think for oneself and be prepared to act from one's own convictions.

How does one do that? One's "own convictions" are, by your account, subjective. That means there's no way to know if they're better or worse than any other "convictions."

In any case, what ideological supposition provides you your criteria to say it's "better" to do that? Egoism, knee-jerk individualism, or solipsism seem obvious candidates. Maybe a bland and unthinking Humanism, if coupled with individualism would also work. But why should we accept any of these ideologies? They really don't have much to commend them, and nothing to show that they're better than any other ideologies.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

There is no stance which is not subjective.

That being so, there is no non-ideological stance. And your suggestion that we owe it to become "objective" is impossible.

You should read more carefully! I wrote that it's not possible to be completely objective. I now add that it's not even desirable even were it possible.Completely objective would be robotic and non creative. Ideologies are usually institutionalised and politicalised and are therefore to be regarded with suspicion at all times.

Ideologies are best regarded with suspicion.

Yes, fine: but how can one do that, without admitting one's own ideological position? For if one does not know what one's own ideological position is, one cannot possibly be "suspicious" of it: one does not even see it, but takes it entirely for granted, and assumes it to be perfectly "objective."

I admit that my own stance is European Western enlightenment. Considering that this stance includes scepticism, independent work, honesty, and self knowledge it's not very accurate to call it an ideology which connotes passive acceptance.

In place of ideologies it's better to think for oneself and be prepared to act from one's own convictions.

How does one do that? One's "own convictions" are, by your account, subjective. That means there's no way to know if they're better or worse than any other "convictions."

My own convictions are not easy or pleasant. They involve quite a lot of work. I distrust superficiality and cant. I accept the warnings against idolatry and hubris. I am not dogmatic.

In any case, what ideological supposition provides you your criteria to say it's "better" to do that? Egoism, knee-jerk individualism, or solipsism seem obvious candidates. Maybe a bland and unthinking Humanism, if coupled with individualism would also work. But why should we accept any of these ideologies? They really don't have much to commend them, and nothing to show that they're better than any other ideologies.

Humanists not only have the courage of their convictions, they also tend towards utilitarianism at the political level and ordinary human kindness at the personal level.

You, Immanuel, reason. That is what you do on this board. Posit your Godhead as much as you will you cannot deny that He gave you reason.

[henry quirk]

...and as it is absolutely impossible to be a living human being and not have a perspective, this much ballyhoo'd 'objectivity' that gets vomitted up is just fiction, fantasy, and manure. It's the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow not a one of us can ever get to. Perspective: literally where one stands in relation to sumthin'.

Now avoidin' codification (or ossification), mebbe a body can, in part, do that (cuz one can walk around the elephant; no one is rooted in place), but just cuz one can shift perspective doesn't mean they should.

Belinda describes her own 'European Western enlightenment'; I favor a coarser, perhaps shallower, American Individualism. Either way: it's just 'perspective' (you, reader, must apply your own when determining who adheres to a [loose] codification and who is married to a fossil).

[Scott Mayers]

As such, I anticipate that you won't give up your insistence of that Atheist is a form of belief on par with the stupidity of religion.

No. I would simply argue that the term "religion" is a term of Atheist artifice, not an accurate or informative one.

I tell you what: IF you ARE not a fraud, you'd have nothing to fear for being yourself here as I am. Hiding behind a positive aphorism...

You mean "pseudonym," I think.

But I find your complaint disingenuous. We have no way of knowing what your real name is, and using a pseudonym is the rule on this site, you'll find, not the exception: and not only on this website, but on websites generally.

Your point is merely ad hominem, and fails to address the issue of what views and reasons are offered here, which is all that ultimately matters.

I know that YOU'RE position here is as an arrogant con from the conservative branch of politics that believes in KEEPING people dumb so that you can take advantage of them. I KNOW that IF you actually ARE intelligent, you could NOT believe in some god but are using your claimed beliefs to JUSTIFY why you think you should 'own' more than your own share of power and make others be subservient to you. It is in your INTEREST, not some God's, to insult those who LACK A DEFAULT BELIEF IN YOU and yours personally.

And yes, there is some ad hominem attack included in this with you because you continue to do the same when you INSIST what an 'atheist' is by your own arrogant insulting perspective, as though YOUR claimed belief is 'normal'.

I gave an excellent challenge to you: IF the Atheist is so 'evil', AND we lack a belief in the delusions you want us to default some faith in, then WHY wouldn't it be MORE rational of an Atheist to PRETEND not to be 'atheist' but rather some religiously devout thinker imposing wisdom behind the perfect safety of anonymity? IF YOU are the true believer you think is so virtuous, there would be no need for you to hide as you do. If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

I am demanding that you PROVE that the 'evil' atheist wouldn't fake BEING religious like yourself. I am demanding you PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT an Atheist in disguise. As an atheist myself, I already default to not believing there is any NEED for some magical being. Thus I certainly don't think that you actually HAVE any reason to be who you claim to be other than to be delusional OR deceptive.

P.S. Your label here is correctly a 'pseudonym' but the 'aphorism' within it is the "I can" in your counter to the name of "Kant" (can't).

[Immanuel Can]

I know that YOU'RE position here...

Ad hominem. Logical fallacy.

you INSIST what an 'atheist' is by your own arrogant insulting perspective, as though YOUR claimed belief is 'normal'.

Actually, I go by what Atheists say about themselves.

It is they who claim they don't believe anything, they only disbelieve. At the same time, many of them claim (as you do) that they know that belief in God is a delusion, and then they claim not to "know" anything at all. It is they who claim Atheism contains no moral precepts, and cannot be used to prevent any evil or foster any good. And it is they who use the term "religion" instead of the more informative particulars. All this, I have no need to invent. I merely comment on it.

I have no need to distort the facts, as the facts they give me are problematic enough for their position.

I gave an excellent challenge to you...

Actually, I found its wording a bit hard to comprehend. But if you'll reword, I'm happy to try to address it.

IF YOU are the true believer you think is so virtuous, there would be no need for you to hide as you do.

As I say, this is disingenuous. All the people on this forum are using pseudonyms.

And if you're not, might I encourage you to do so? For although you might be happy to accept any backlash against your views, I doubt your spouse, family, employer and friends have been offered the chance to avoid such things. So in their interest, you'd be wise to be more cautious about handing out your identity...particularly if you're going to incite any controversy.

In this case, you're safe: I have no ill-will or bad intent. But I'm not the only person on the internet, so you in your own best interests, I suggest you select a pseudonym.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

Again, I confess that I find this hard to interpret.

Something, you say, is a "genetic factor"? And "others" are involved here somehow? And God would "suffice to be not needing" something? If you reword, I'll be happy to try to speak to your concern.

I am demanding that you PROVE that the 'evil' atheist wouldn't fake BEING religious like yourself.

A strange ask. I don't know why you think Atheists have a concept of "evil," or why you suppose they would "fake being religious."

Again, if you could explain better, perhaps I could respond...

I am demanding you PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT an Atheist in disguise.

What would be my motive for pretending to be an Atheist, while proving that Atheism is foolish? That would be an odd way to proceed, don't you think?

[Immanuel Can]

I wrote that it's not possible to be completely objective. I now add that it's not even desirable even were it possible.

Then why did you say that we should "try" to be it, "as much as possible"? Are you ordinarily given to advising that which you think impossible?

I admit that my own stance is European Western enlightenment.

Which version? Positivism? Materialism? Idealism? Modernism? Postmodernism? Existentialism? Classical Liberalism? Marxism? Post-Liberalism? Nihilism? Pragmatism?

My own convictions are not easy or pleasant. They involve quite a lot of work. I distrust superficiality and cant. I accept the warnings against idolatry and hubris. I am not dogmatic.

You've told me what you think you're "not." But you haven't told me what you are.

Humanists not only have the courage of their convictions, they also tend towards utilitarianism at the political level and ordinary human kindness at the personal level.

Oh? You regard yourself as a Humanist, then? It took an awful lot of talking to get you to own it. Utilitarianism is question-begging, of course. The critiques of it are old and well-rehearsed. As for "ordinary human kindness," I find it odd that you are pro-abortion as well.

You, Immanuel, reason. That is what you do on this board. Posit your Godhead as much as you will you cannot deny that He gave you reason.

I'm a big fan of reason. I wouldn't dream of "denying" it. But there is no "uniquely reasonable" ideology -- and Secular Humanism certainly isn't it. That's easy enough to show, even on Secular Humanism's own terms. It has no rational way to legitimate its own highest values, so it falls at the first hurdle, rationally speaking.

[henry quirk]

B wrote: I admit that my own stance is European Western enlightenment.

Mannie asked: Which version? Positivism? Materialism? Idealism? Modernism? Postmodernism? Existentialism? Classical Liberalism? Marxism? Post-Liberalism? Nihilism? Pragmatism?

She's socialist: 'nuff said.

[Scott Mayers]

I know that YOU'RE position here...

Ad hominem. Logical fallacy.

It's only a 'fallacy' if I'm using it AS an argument. I was only REFLECTING your own ad hominems against whatever you presume is "Athiest".

you INSIST what an 'atheist' is by your own arrogant insulting perspective, as though YOUR claimed belief is 'normal'.

Actually, I go by what Atheists say about themselves.

It is they who claim they don't believe anything, they only disbelieve. At the same time, many of them claim (as you do) that they know that belief in God is a delusion, and then they claim not to "know" anything at all. It is they who claim Atheism contains no moral precepts, and cannot be used to prevent any evil or foster any good. And it is they who use the term "religion" instead of the more informative particulars. All this, I have no need to invent. I merely comment on it.

I have no need to distort the facts, as the facts they give me are problematic enough for their position.

And if I assert being an Atheist but you are TELLING me that I'm a co-religious believer when I LACK belief, you are inappropriately ignoring what the atheist means.

If you LACK a belief in some other people's CLAIMS of some belief they 'own', do you require FIRST believing anything anyone tells you that involves us ALL in order to dismissing it when its very claims are themselves absurd? If I said that Santa Claus created the ALL of us, does the fact that I include you in my 'belief' make you require being considered irrational to also doubt me for merely asserting it true? If you are not Muslim, are you too not an atheist for happening to doubt them for having a different set of countering beliefs of your own?

What you are irrational about is that you expect that I should suspend my own experiences of life (a belief in the plain ordinary reality we all share regardless of different beliefs) and default to TRUSTING anything of ANY religious claims of some particular person with MORE FAITH than my own senses BEFORE being qualified to dismiss. Which of the infinite claims of such counter-intuitive ideas should be embraced? Why are you not a Muslim or a Jew, or a Buddhist? Are you at least not a 'relative' atheist of some other theism?

I gave an excellent challenge to you...

Actually, I found its wording a bit hard to comprehend. But if you'll reword, I'm happy to try to address it.

You are either an Atheist or,....you are an aatheist (negation of the negation of theism). I put the reversed irrational burden on you. Try it on. Why do you NOT believe in non-non-God? Do you disbelieve in Non-existing-God? If you doubt Non-existing-God,why can't you feel its non-presence everywhere?

IF YOU are the true believer you think is so virtuous, there would be no need for you to hide as you do.

As I say, this is disingenuous. All the people on this forum are using pseudonyms.

And if you're not, might I encourage you to do so? For although you might be happy to accept any backlash against your views, I doubt your spouse, family, employer and friends have been offered the chance to avoid such things. So in their interest, you'd be wise to be more cautious about handing out your identity...particularly if you're going to incite any controversy.

In this case, you're safe: I have no ill-will or bad intent. But I'm not the only person on the internet, so you in your own best interests, I suggest you select a pseudonym.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

My choice to be non-anonymous is distinct. I don't mind anonymity. I mind those asserting a strong faith in some super-being they claim that answers our prayers and adjudicates the wrongs in this life later on AND hypocritically ACT as though they'd have something to fear for thinking the NEED to be anonymous. This was a point about you specifically. If you are such a faithful and positive believer in God, you'd have nothing to fear for BEING completely naked without being deluded that you're wearing fine invisible attire.

If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

Again, I confess that I find this hard to interpret.

Something, you say, is a "genetic factor"? And "others" are involved here somehow? And God would "suffice to be not needing" something? If you reword, I'll be happy to try to speak to your concern.

I think you are stalling of choking here. YOU assume that God is a fact by default to which we all 'know' or you wouldn't think it odd for the atheist to be the default position. That is, you assume we are born uniquely knowing your 'god' and that the atheist is just REBELLING against this as some genetic truth.

I'm saying that if this being IS our default, why would it create us to KNOW it while having the potential to resist it if it is so powerful?

It is an example of ad hominem to presume the Atheist is some demon that is doing the lying and deceiving about what is or is not true as though religious claims of truth are undeniably 'natural'. Your tactic imposed upon us to attempt to "gaslight" the atheist as the one that is delusional so that we don't pose a real threat to your intentional deceit that is normally most effective on others. At best, you try to inoculate the suckers who already believe from listening to anyone asserting themselves an 'atheist' by label by defining the term in some irrational meaning.

It would be like if I defined the term, "Christian" by some clever tactic to my children as 'morons' so that when they run into one, they can automatically close their ears to you without justice. Stop telling me what an 'atheist' is. If I claim the label AND define it, you can't dismiss me because you insist on defining me by the dictionary of your selective church's own books.

I am demanding that you PROVE that the 'evil' atheist wouldn't fake BEING religious like yourself.

A strange ask. I don't know why you think Atheists have a concept of "evil," or why you suppose they would "fake being religious."

Again, if you could explain better, perhaps I could respond...

I am demanding you PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT an Atheist in disguise.

What would be my motive for pretending to be an Atheist, while proving that Atheism is foolish? That would be an odd way to proceed, don't you think?

Already expressed. Answer the question.

[FlashDangerpants]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I would simply argue that the term "religion" is a term of Atheist artifice, not an accurate or informative one.

There is a hint of truth in this .

More than a hint, I would say.

In fact, I think that you will find nobody of any ideological stripe who will define themselves as simply "religious." They'll say, "I'm a Hindu," or "I'm a Rastafarian." That, in itself, shows that the label comes from outside, as a negative and dismissive collective term.

Seems a bit excessive. There are only a handful of raging idiots who will describe themselves as simply "human beings"*, humans will typically say "i'm Hungarian" or "I'm an accountant". that does not in any way show that the label "human" was invented by ferrets or fish, nor that it is a dismissive collective term.




* I would have said none but, you know, there's some weird religious nutjobs out there who probably do.

[FlashDangerpants]

I gave an excellent challenge to you: IF the Atheist is so 'evil', AND we lack a belief in the delusions you want us to default some faith in, then WHY wouldn't it be MORE rational of an Atheist to PRETEND not to be 'atheist' but rather some religiously devout thinker imposing wisdom behind the perfect safety of anonymity? IF YOU are the true believer you think is so virtuous, there would be no need for you to hide as you do. If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

Mate, I'm an atheist, and even I can see that you are losing your shit like a madman here. None of that challenge makes any sense at all, the word "excellent" has never been asked to work so hard in all of history.