Silly Religion

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism and Theism are just words.

Well, words that define beliefs.

One refers to belief in a god, the other refers to no belief in a god.

No. The second refers to denial that God exists. That's analytic in the name, and is practiced as such by the Atheists here. They are not content to say, "I don't personally have a belief in God." They want to go on to add..."and you shouldn't, too."

But if the Atheist claim were so weak as you say it is, merely a "lack" of belief, such a step would not be rationally warranted.

I wonder why you continually fancy yourself as the all-knowing definer of all things.

Because I can read. Anybody who can, knows what I'm saying is the case.

My question was: "How is the lack of something, a belief?" Can you answer that?

Easily. "Lack of belief" is a trivial claim, one with no implications for anyone else. Heck, it doesn't even go so far as to suggest the speaker couldn't change his mind in the next five minutes. So if that's what you think "Atheism" is, it's one weak thing, with no importance anyone -- not even, really, to the speaker, since he could change his mind at any moment.

"Why do you think your viewpoint and definitions are more accurate than the people actually living it?"

My definition is analytically correct. And if you think Atheists have another belief than that there is no God, tell me what you think I'm leaving out.

Are you purposefully avoiding answering the questions directly if at all? [/quote]
It's because your ad hominems are irrelevant. I don't just "think" it; it's analytical in the meaning of "Atheist."

Is it all right for people to define what theism is for you?

Yep. So long as they respect the meaning of the word, and know my actual version of Theism.

You do not seem like the kind of person who would want anyone defining anything for you.

I'm not fragile on that point. People are free to say what they think.

And that's why I would think you'd have more awareness and respect that non-theists don't want you defining anything for them.

"Atheists." Don't change the terms.

Is your need so strong to dismantle and invalidate any non-theist thinking?

We're doing philosophy. If you're not interested in the logical implications of a belief, then talk about something else, I guess.

Why? What difference does it make?

What difference does it make if people believe something false and irrational, and miss out on any awareness of the Supreme Being, the grounds of morality and the purpose of existence?

Gee, I dunno...

[RCSaunders]

But the unconscious mind being 90% more powerful is fed with the fact of inevitable death, thus is stimulated to react in various indirect ways, such as Angst, anxieties and all sort of uneasiness

VA, I'm saying this as kindly as I can. If what you have described is what you experience you are suffering from, at best, a neurosis. Those kinds of feelings are not what people with healthy minds experience at all.

As for psychology, here are some of my past articles:

No Subconscious
Dr. Edith Packer's, Lectures on Psychology--The 'Subconscious' Fallacy
Psychology's Anticivilizing Influence on the West--Part 1, How it Began and Where it's Going
Repress, Repress, Repress
Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs--And Other Psychobable
Feelings And Emotions--Their Nature, Significance, And Importance

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah, well, now you're a million miles from the Golden Rule.

Not really, both reciprocation and the Golden rule (which is to love others as one loves themself) are both moral loops.

Well, no. And you have the reasons why the GR isn't reciprocity. You can ignore them, but they'll still be there.

The Golden Rule and reciprocity are both loops, take it as is.

[RCSaunders]

... One cannot know anything from somebody's claim of Atheism, except that they have an ungrounded, un-proof-supported personal desire that no God should exist. ...[emphasis mine.]

I certainly do not object to you believing non-theists are mistaken in their reasoning, but to presume to know what others, "desire," it is psychologizing. To accuse others of mistaken beliefs from wrong motives (desires) is just wrong.

I personally would love for there to be a God. You know I've studied the Bible (more than most Christians), because I wanted to understand the nature of God and to know how to relate to that God. I've studied all the great theologians, and have personally sat under the teaching of some of the greatest evangelical preachers in this country, (U.S.). When I finally discovered there is no God, it was a great disappointment.

What would you think, IC, if someone suggested the only reason you believed in God, is because you have a, "personal desire that God should exist?" Would that be honest?

How unfortunate for the Atheist, then, if, as I would maintain, God has actually intervened in this world so as to reveal His existence, but the Atheist's gratuitous and logically-unsupportable refusal to consider the evidence should blind him to that fact.

Those things you call evidence of God's intervention are only evidence of God's existence if there is, indeed, a God. To attribute to what is in question (the existence of God) to that as yet unproven premise is call, "begging the question," as you know. You cannot call those things, "evidence of God," without assuming there is a God. When someone prays, and the thing they prayed for occurs, they may believe it is proof God answered their prayer. If someone else uses a satanic ritual seeking the same thing the Christian prayed for, and the thing they sought occurs, they will believe it is proof their rituals work. Both the Christian and Satanist are wrong.

... one can never prove Atheism right.

Atheism does not, as far as I know, assert anything that needs to be proved.

Just the non-existence of God...which it cannot prove.

Really? What does it mean to, "prove the non-existence of the non-existent?"

I think you are laboring under the misaprehension that those who do not believe in mysticism and the supernatural are at pains to convince others of the superstitious nature of their beliefs. Except for a small number of radical militants, most of those who do not believe in God, for example, have little or no interest in what the gullible and credulous believe.

I am certain there is no God,

See, there's the claim again. Not mere doubt, but certainty. Your choice of words. So your Atheism is not the kind that says, I merely "don't believe in any particular gods," it's a categorical denial of the existence of God, with "certainty" promised into the bargain.

Am I supposed to have doubt? Well, I don't. I hope that does not disappoint you.

Hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.

[RCSaunders]

But Atheism can't ever prove it's case. It's unfalsifiable and unprovable...irrational on both ends.

Then it's an invalid assumption. If something cannot be proved false, if it is false and cannot be proved true, if it is true, it is merely a fiction which has no rational meaning.

There was, a long time ago, a South-sea island with a small population of somewhat primitive people who had no concept of any supernatural force or being. They did not deny the existence of God, because they had never heard of one, but they certainly did not believe there is a God. Would you call them Atheists?

Most of those you call, "Atheists," are like those South-sea island natives. They hear the word, "God," from time to time, but to them it's just a meaningless sound made by people who have some kind of beliefs that mean nothing to them. They do not deny God, they have no idea what it is those who use that word are talking about.

Now if you ask me, "do you believe in God," I would have to ask, "What's God?" This has happened to me, and of course, as soon as someone attempts to explain what they mean by God, it is so full of contractions no honest person could believe what they have described.

I do not deny there is a God, I just have no idea what it is you mean by, "God." Oh, I've read your explanations and descriptions, but they have neither explained or described anything I can make sense of. When you ask me if I believe in God, it's like handing me a book written Sanskrit (which I neither read or speak) and asking me if I believe it. How could I?

[Lacewing]

…

I think we both know you're playing games with words in a way that suits you.

Words can be used in so many ways. Including the word "atheist". Using it does not override all else being said.

First and foremost, I think of myself as just being.
When helpful for communication, I might refer to being a non-theist.
It is one of MANY things I am. All of which have many contexts.
Sometimes in an argument about theism vs. atheism, I will speak for the atheist view because, of the two terms, I identify with it more.
But I don't go around identifying as an atheist. It was a word made up based on theism. So you claim to know all about it.
Evidently you are unable to separate your creations and add-ons from what is actually true for those who have no belief in a god.
So, I'm going to leave you to your word games and madness.
Even my theist friends can have more balanced conversations than you do. You are too busy on the stage of your own creation.
I'm not interested in your performance: full of lies and self-serving fantasy. (I think you know it, but maybe you don't.)
Fun to poke at sometimes...but overall meaningless.

[Immanuel Can]

The Golden Rule and reciprocity are both loops, take it as is.

I will.

It isn't that.

[Immanuel Can]

…

I think we both know you're playing games with words in a way that suits you.

No, well, you imagine it, maybe.

Words can be used in so many ways. Including the word "atheist".

Words have analytic meaning.

The analytic meaning of "Atheist" is "N0 + God."

...So you claim to know all about it.
Evidently you are unable...

Ad hominem. Simply irrelevant. I don't care a fig what you want to say about me. It's not rationally connected in any way to the truth or falsehood of any proposition.

Ideas are not changed by the person who holds them. If Atheism is a bad idea, it will not be improved if a 'good' person happens to cling to it. It will simply be a bad idea had by a 'good' person.

[Sculptor]

But Atheism can't ever prove it's case. It's unfalsifiable and unprovable...irrational on both ends.

Then it's an invalid assumption. If something cannot be proved false, if it is false and cannot be proved true, if it is true, it is merely a fiction which has no rational meaning.

Atheism is not a proposition. It is a default position. It is Theism that makes the case.

When theism successfully makes its case then there will be no more need for atheism. Or when the Theists curl up and die of exhaustion, there will be no need for atheism.
I'll not hold my breath.

[Immanuel Can]

... One cannot know anything from somebody's claim of Atheism, except that they have an ungrounded, un-proof-supported personal desire that no God should exist. ...[emphasis mine.]

I certainly do not object to you believing non-theists are mistaken in their reasoning, but to presume to know what others, "desire," it is psychologizing. To accuse others of mistaken beliefs from wrong motives (desires) is just wrong.

It's not really psychologizing, RC. It's logic. Once all the logical possibilities have been eliminated, what is there but desire?

For any person to believe in a belief that is demonstrably ungrounded, unsupported by proof and irrational is a bad thing. And Atheism is manifestly that, by logic. So we have to go looking for why people would even want to do something so irrational. I think the most obvious suggestion is that they desire something that Atheism gives them or allows them. For some, it's moral liberty. For some, it's the ability not to think about God. For others, it may be pride. And for others, it may be a fear that if they open their minds to the possibility of God, they may undermine their own confidence in some way. Many things are possible.

As to what it is, I defer to your judgment on that. But as to the irrationality of Atheism itself, that's simply evident by way of reason.

I personally would love for there to be a God.

I can well understand why. But I would not advocate that you let your desire that there should be a God control your judgment, anymore than I would encourage somebody to disbelieve out of desire. Wanting something to be so is not sufficient warrant for any belief, either way.

[/quote]You know I've studied the Bible (more than most Christians), because I wanted to understand the nature of God and to know how to relate to that God. I've studied all the great theologians, and have personally sat under the teaching of some of the greatest evangelical preachers in this country, (U.S.). When I finally discovered there is no God, it was a great disappointment.[/quote]
This is the funny thing, RC.

You say you "discovered" there was no God...but unless you had some grounds or test, that's impossible to do. Absent such a test, you can "decide," or you can "wish," or you can even "suspect," if you can find some reason to suspect. All those you can do.

But to know with certainty? No. Impossible. The empirical test required is simply higher than any man can rationally claim to have achieved, RC.

What would you think, IC, if someone suggested the only reason you believed in God, is because you have a, "personal desire that God should exist?" Would that be honest?

Well, I've heard that. In fact, Freud said that.

But you point out an interesting flaw in his logic -- that rebuff works equally well for Atheism. If we can imagine that Theism is a "wish-fulfillment" for God, then Atheism is a "wish-fulfillment" not to have a God. So that argument goes nowhere, really. It applies to any belief a person could have.

But to what would you ascribe the Atheist's desire to claim a level of certainty that, rationally, we can know he cannot possibly have? If he cannot have sufficient reasons, what can he have other than a wish? He must have some incentive to cling to his irrational position, no? Otherwise, why would he?

Again, I'm open to hearing if you have an explanation.

Those things you call evidence of God's intervention are only evidence of God's existence if there is, indeed, a God.

Well, the problem with that rejoinder is that that's an empty truism. It's like saying, "The things you call evidence for a murder -- the dead body, the bloody knife, the hate messages -- are only evidence if there was a murder."

Well, yeah. So what's the problem?

You cannot call those things, "evidence of God," without assuming there is a God.

Of course you can. We do such things all the time.

It's called, "argument to the best explanation." You look at the data, and say, "What is the best explanation that covers all of this stuff?" Then you decide what those things are evidence FOR.

There is the weapon, the blood, the body, the hate messages...what's the first explanation that comes out of that? And we can keep exploring the evidence, and change our minds to "suicide" if we think that's better, given all the evidence. But we don't need to beg our conclusion; just work to find the best explanation for all the data. The right conclusion will suggest itself, eventually.

The guy was most probably murdered.

Atheism does not, as far as I know, assert anything that needs to be proved.

Just the non-existence of God...which it cannot prove.

Really? What does it mean to, "prove the non-existence of the non-existent?"

Now, that's question-begging. Instead of referring to the evidence, and submitting yourself to the data, the Atheist jumps right to the conclusion -- and worse, the conclusion that no amount of evidence could possibly warrant. He assumes non-existence, then refuses to recognize anything that comes AS evidence, even if it might be. And worse, he pretends to certainty himself.

I am certain there is no God,

See, there's the claim again. Not mere doubt, but certainty. Your choice of words. So your Atheism is not the kind that says, I merely "don't believe in any particular gods," it's a categorical denial of the existence of God, with "certainty" promised into the bargain.

Am I supposed to have doubt? Well, I don't. I hope that does not disappoint you.

I should hope it would disappoint you, actually, RC. That would be very healthy kind of disappointment.

For you can see that doubt about any categorical claim to certainty about the non-existence of the Supreme Being cannot possibly be warranted. I would be disappointed to discover that anything I had been believing was so devoid of warrant. But I hope I'd also be open to rethinking it, once I realized I'd been claiming a level of certainty I actually did not have. And in the end, I'd be glad I'd been temporarily disappointed, so I could come to a better conclusion.

Hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.

Very much, thank you. I find it sharpens my thinking to discuss these things, especially with reasonable folks. I get bored when it degenerates into the personal, and at that point it becomes unprofitably irrational. Some people do that; but I've never found you tend that way.

I trust it's still stimulating for you, too.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism is not a proposition. It is a default position It is Theism that makes the case.

Well, if you want to be rational, then agnosticism is the rational default position. Atheism, by contrast, is an irrational foreclosing on the central question.

At least agnosticism is suitably humble, and admits it lacks the evidence to produce a confident disbelief or belief, and leaves the question to be resolved.

Atheism just fakes it.

[Immanuel Can]

If something cannot be proved false, if it is false and cannot be proved true...

Use a test case, and you'll see this isn't so. If I say the span of the universe is a billion light years, you cannot prove that false. Or if I say I know that there are seventy billion fish in the sea, you cannot prove that false. But you can know for certain that the universe HAS a size, at a given moment, and that there are a limited number of fish in the sea. So SOMETHING is true, in both cases.

There was, a long time ago, a South-sea island with a small population of somewhat primitive people who had no concept of any supernatural force or being. They did not deny the existence of God, because they had never heard of one, but they certainly did not believe there is a God. Would you call them Atheists?

No. Agnostic.

Most of those you call, "Atheists," are like those South-sea island natives.

They're not, actually. Atheists, unlike most agnostics, are often very "evangelical" in their zeal. They not only want to disbelieve for themselves, but they want to say that other people shouldn't believe either. And they want this with their having to produce sufficient warrant.

They hear the word, "God," from time to time, but to them it's just a meaningless sound made by people who have some kind of beliefs that mean nothing to them.

Romans 1 speaks of this. You'll no doubt know the passage. It says,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..."

They do not deny God, they have no idea what it is those who use that word are talking about.

Sure they do. The concept is not at all hard.

Now if you ask me, "do you believe in God," I would have to ask, "What's God?"

I thought you had read the Bible? If you have, how can you say, "I have no idea what it's talking about when it says 'God'?" You've got 66 books spelling it out, plus that witness of God in your own life, as Romans says.

The problem's not the concept. That's easy enough.

This has happened to me, and of course, as soon as someone attempts to explain what they mean by God, it is so full of contractions no honest person could believe what they have described.

You need a better "someone," then, RC.

I do not deny there is a God,

Wait a minute...in your last messages, you said several times you were "certain."

Now you're saying you don't even know what you would be being "certain" about?

Which do you want me to believe? For they manifestly cannot both be true.

[Sculptor]

Atheism is not a proposition. It is a default position It is Theism that makes the case.

Well, if you want to be rational, then agnosticism is the rational default position. Atheism, by contrast, is an irrational foreclosing on the central question.

No agnosticism gives come credibility to an idiotic proposition.
I'm not agnostic about the existence of dragons or unicorns either.

[Immanuel Can]

No agnosticism gives come credibility to an idiotic proposition.
I'm not agnostic about the existence of dragons or unicorns either.

Punctuation problem in line 1, I have to assume?

And the rest is vituperation without benefit of reason, it seems.

So, not much offered, but nothing expected, so there we are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the unconscious mind being 90% more powerful is fed with the fact of inevitable death, thus is stimulated to react in various indirect ways, such as Angst, anxieties and all sort of uneasiness

VA, I'm saying this as kindly as I can. If what you have described is what you experience you are suffering from, at best, a neurosis. Those kinds of feelings are not what people with healthy minds experience at all.

As for psychology, here are some of my past articles:

No Subconscious
Dr. Edith Packer's, Lectures on Psychology--The 'Subconscious' Fallacy
Psychology's Anticivilizing Influence on the West--Part 1, How it Began and Where it's Going
Repress, Repress, Repress
Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs--And Other Psychobable
Feelings And Emotions--Their Nature, Significance, And Importance

Noted the articles you listed.
However, you are attacking a straw-man above.
I am not going in the direction of Freud and his psychoanalysis which is vulnerable to abuse.

It is more like this;

• In modern cognitive psychology, many researchers have sought to strip the notion of the unconscious from its Freudian heritage, and alternative terms such as "implicit" or "automatic" have been used.
  These traditions emphasize the degree to which cognitive processing happens outside the scope of cognitive awareness, and show that things we are unaware of can nonetheless influence other cognitive processes as well as behavior.[43][44][45][46][47]
  Active research traditions related to the unconscious include implicit memory (see priming, implicit attitudes), and nonconscious acquisition of knowledge (see Lewicki, see also the section on cognitive perspective below).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind

Note it is so obvious with the average person, there are loads of actions that one did that one is not doing it consciously and deliberately. In addition, such "unconscious" actions cannot be specifically explained.

I am not insisting the subconscious or unconscious mind as something mysterious that cannot be explained in the future.
Whatever the actions from the subconscious or unconscious are something that can be traceable to specific neuronal activities and I am confident they can be explained in the future when the Human Connectome Project has made sufficient progress.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
However even when humanity can explained the 'subconscious' activities, some of these unconscious activities may not be controllable by the conscious mind.

Your argument re 'healthy mind' is fallacious.
That the majority are theists i.e. clinging to an illusion of God as real and being delusional is not of a healthy mind. It is only their consensus as majority that claim themselves to be healthy.

It is not MY personal experience but rather as explained my main focus is the experiences of the majority, i.e. the theists who are greatly effected by the inherent existential crisis that led them to theism.

As a normal human being I admit the existential crisis is inherent within my brain but fortunately I am not seriously effected by it like the theists.
I hypothesize the way you keep churning straw-man[s] is a sign of an active existential crisis within your brain.

Btw, you have not countered the argument I have provided above specifically.
You are merely making noises by throwing in straw-man[s].