Philosophy Now Forum

Yeah, we make our own fun.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Melchior wrote:Even if they are etymologically related, the point remains that 'other' is not quantifiable. I cannot be more 'other' than you. Got it? Thus something cannot be 'wholly' other. The sense Oxford is referring to is used in a different construction, not as a prepositional adjective. Got it yet, dumbass?

How cute. Deficient reasoning capped with name-calling.

Anyway, have fun with OUP and Heidegger.

A: Which one? This one?

B: No, the other one.

henry quirk wrote:Yeah, we make our own fun.

That's usually the best kind.

We 'atheists' are not interested in debating with you or anyone. We don't give a shit what you think. There is nothing new in what you say; it is all very old and tired, lame bullshit that we heard growing up. Go away and bother someone else.

Do (most) atheists take the time to read the (Hebrew) Bible/Qur'an/vedas/suttas/Analects/etc in their entirety (as opposed to cherry-picking)?
Do (most) atheists take the time to read the writings of the "great thinkers" in that tradition? (e.g. Aquinas, Ibn Rushd, Shankara, Nagarjuna, etc)?
Do (most) atheists think it is important to correctly describe the religious beliefs they attack?

Here is my take on your questions:

I don't know what 'most atheists' read to support the fact that they don't believe there is a God.
Where do you think you would find 'most atheists'?
I would suggest that only academically-inclined atheists/strongly interested philosophers might know the subject inside out. To go seek the substance of the opposing view, all the better to provide a strong opposing argument.

I could turn your question round and ask:
Do (most) theists think it is important to correctly describe and understand the atheist or non-believer position?
I think not. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam and still we go round in circles.
Also, I don't think that most regular church-goers or believers self-identify as 'theists'.

Imagine you coming into the world - with no input from religion. What would make you think there was a God?
If you were not told that the Bible etc. - was the Word of God, but took it as face value - a human production, what would make you think there was a God?
If you were full of wonder/dismay about the circumstances of your environment, where would you look to find out information about the world?

People are born as non-believers in a God.
If people come to 'know' God via Church/Bible/Community, and they believe that God exists then that is faith. Secondary at best.
I suggest that any Primary Source would be God; perhaps giving some sign to that individual...

If someone thinks they hear the voice of God, the message would still be open to interpretation.
People have little voices/thoughts in their head all the time - we have an internal dialogue. This is how we come to make decisions; like whether or not we can believe in a God or what any religious text tells us.
Sometimes, this is a painful process particularly for those brought up in a religious background. Many 'believers' have doubts ( only natural) but would still live their lives self-identifying as Christian/Muslim - whatever. It is difficult to change personal and strong societal structures.

So, the answer to your question is 'No'.
Some non-believer might be 'turned' by a supernatural voice/signal. Generally, an atheist would question any such 'primary source', given other explanations. Some might read secondary and tertiary sources.
In everyday life, it is not necessary to have read the Bible in its entirety to not believe in God.

I really don't know why it is so difficult to understand the position of a non-believer...?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: his own pet god was invented by a bunch of illiterate post-neolithic goat-herders in the desert.

A point of historical interest. The mono-god which so enslaved the minds of the goat-herders was actually the confection of an Egyptian pharoah by the name of Amenhotep IV, who later changed his name to Akhenaten on the advice of a shrewd PR agent. Akhenaten was a fruitloop of rare calibre, even by the lofty standards of Egyptian inbred royalty, so his nutty new religion never really caught on with his own people, who already had gods coming out of their ears. However the priesthood of Aten survived as a minority cult for quite a few centuries after Amenhotep's death and it became the preferred religion of a minority population of Judeans who had been marched across the Sinai in chains for making pricks of themselves with the neighbours. In those days Egypt was the regional superpower, and thus the world's policeman in much the same way as the US is today. Eventually the Egyptians got sick of having these quarrelsome folk within their ranks so they chucked them out again. The Judeans dutifully marched their way back across the Sinai, taking their new god with them, and got straight back into the serious business of making pricks of themselves with the neighbours, an honourable tradition which they have managed to maintain right up until the present day.

Akhenaten was reputed to have had the most beautiful wife in Egypt, a sheila who went by the name of Nefertiti. By all accounts she was famous for them.

Speaking as an archaeologist, I know a little about Akhenaten. The notion that he might have been the origin of the monotheistic deity is disputed, as you will know.
The main thrust of the dispute is the simple enough idea that the "Exodus" of the jews from Egypt is also hotly disputed, not least by Zionists wishing to establish their Levantine aboriginal roots. And that there were never any Jews, as such in Egypt.
There very good reasons why the Exodus is probably a completely made-up story. There are a series of idiotic "facts" about the number of persons claimed to have emigrated: a number that would have utterly destroyed the economy of the largest of empires at any time in history. Then there is the puzzling fact that the Bible did not know the name of the Pharaoh at the time of the exodus, and for the entire period there is NOT ONE single reference to any Jew, or person of foreign religion either leaving of living inside the jurisdiction of the Egyptian sphere of control for the whole of Egyptian history. This is not an idle fact, as the amount and number of records reaches a level of detail which is so high as the omission of the Jews could only mean the absence of the Jews.
The only valid interpretation would suggest that a small band of pastoralists (PRE_JEWISH), know to have commuted between the lands later known as Judea and the northern fertile plains of the Nile Delta were ejected by an expanding Egypt, later became Jews around 800BC when the Jewish religion was invented. Like all religions it collected stories and invented foundational myths.
Obviously there is a long historical gap between Akhenaten and the first evidence of Judaism of over 500 years.

It is worth dismissing out of hand the Hollywood film from which this amusing myth has derived; which posits the one true god trying to make a breakthrough and using the symbol that was later the crucifix, as if they were looking into the future and not getting things quite right.

The Egyptian ankh was a symbol for LIFE, not death and torture as it is with the Christians.

"We 'atheists' are not interested in debating with you or anyone. We don't give a shit what you think. There is nothing new in what you say; it is all very old and tired, lame bullshit that we heard growing up. Go away and bother someone else."

Wish folks would stop talkin' for other folks.

To hell with all this 'we' crap.

henry quirk wrote:"We 'atheists' are not interested in debating with you or anyone. We don't give a shit what you think. There is nothing new in what you say; it is all very old and tired, lame bullshit that we heard growing up. Go away and bother someone else."

Wish folks would stop talkin' for other folks.

To hell with all this 'we' crap.

Speaking for myself as representative, I would think most non-believers really don't care to discuss it that much. It's a dead issue.

marjoram_blues wrote:I could turn your question round and ask:
Do (most) theists think it is important to correctly describe and understand the atheist or non-believer position?

Of course not. And I think this is a mistake, just as it is for the atheist (and I have said as much on several occasions here).

marjoram_blues wrote:Imagine you coming into the world - with no input from religion. What would make you think there was a God?
If you were not told that the Bible etc. - was the Word of God, but took it as face value - a human production, what would make you think there was a God?
If you were full of wonder/dismay about the circumstances of your environment, where would you look to find out information about the world?

Easy questions to ask but nearly impossible to answer since none of us (at least on this forum) have ever experienced such a reality. It’s not quite the same as asking “what if you ate chicken for dinner tonight rather than pasta?”

marjoram_blues wrote:I suggest that any Primary Source would be God; perhaps giving some sign to that individual…

This is exactly what Christians say happens, with Jesus, the bible, etc being those signs.

marjoram_blues wrote:Sometimes, this is a painful process particularly for those brought up in a religious background. Many 'believers' have doubts ( only natural) but would still live their lives self-identifying as Christian/Muslim - whatever. It is difficult to change personal and strong societal structures.

I very much agree with you.

marjoram_blues wrote:In everyday life, it is not necessary to have read the Bible in its entirety to not believe in God.

In everyday life, perhaps, but it seems to me that if one is ultimately interested in what's true, this would be something important to do. If the bible/Qur’an/whatever just possibly might be true, it seems to me that at least one read-through would be a good idea, even if it’s just to affirm that it’s gobbledygook. But sure, for personal belief, that seems fine. Of course, it puts the atheists in a rather precarious position when they make statements with respect to the veracity of the Christian/Muslim/etc position if they don’t actually know what the position constitutes.

marjoram_blues wrote:I really don't know why it is so difficult to understand the position of a non-believer...?

If this is the position I’ve communicated, I apologize. My question isn’t about why atheists believe hat they believe but about why they do not take the time to inform themselves concerning the… competition. (Especially if they plan to debate the competition as so often happens here.)

Thanks for your comments marjoram. Very thoughtful and most appreciated. I hope my responses don’t come across as belligerent. This is part of me trying to understand the “competition” and represent it fairly and accurately.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:I could turn your question round and ask:
Do (most) theists think it is important to correctly describe and understand the atheist or non-believer position?

Of course not. And I think this is a mistake, just as it is for the atheist (and I have said as much on several occasions here).

marjoram_blues wrote:Imagine you coming into the world - with no input from religion. What would make you think there was a God?
If you were not told that the Bible etc. - was the Word of God, but took it as face value - a human production, what would make you think there was a God?
If you were full of wonder/dismay about the circumstances of your environment, where would you look to find out information about the world?

Easy questions to ask but nearly impossible to answer since none of us (at least on this forum) have ever experienced such a reality. It’s not quite the same as asking “what if you ate chicken for dinner tonight rather than pasta?”

[quote="marjoram_blues”]I suggest that any Primary Source would be God; perhaps giving some sign to that individual…

This is exactly what Christians say happens, with Jesus, the bible, etc being those signs.

[quote="marjoram_blues”]Sometimes, this is a painful process particularly for those brought up in a religious background. Many 'believers' have doubts ( only natural) but would still live their lives self-identifying as Christian/Muslim - whatever. It is difficult to change personal and strong societal structures./quote]
I very much agree with you.

[quote="marjoram_blues”]In everyday life, it is not necessary to have read the Bible in its entirety to not believe in God. [/quote]
Well, it’s something of a baffling approach then. I confess to being mystified as to what atheists seem to be afraid of. If the bible/Qur’an/whatever just possibly might be true, it seems to me that at least one read-through would be a good idea, even if it’s just to affirm that it’s gobbledygook. But sure, for personal belief, that seems fine. Of course, it puts the atheists in a rather precarious position when they make statements with respect to the veracity of the Christian/Muslim/etc position if they don’t actually know what the position constitutes.

[quote="marjoram_blues”]I really don't know why it is so difficult to understand the position of a non-believer...?[/quote]
If this is the position I’ve communicated, I apologize. My question isn’t about why atheists believe hat they believe but about why they do not take the time to inform themselves concerning the… competition. (Especially if they plan to debate the competition as so often happens here.)

Thanks for your comments marjoram. Very thoughtful and most appreciated. I hope my responses don’t come across as belligerent. This is part of me trying to understand the “competition” and represent it fairly and accurately. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

Look: We don't owe you an explanation. There is no reason to believe in deities, the supernatural, gods, devils, angels, or souls. They don't exist. For the most part I regard the religious as something annoying, like jock itch.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:I could turn your question round and ask:
Do (most) theists think it is important to correctly describe and understand the atheist or non-believer position?

Of course not. And I think this is a mistake, just as it is for the atheist (and I have said as much on several occasions here).

marjoram_blues wrote:Imagine you coming into the world - with no input from religion. What would make you think there was a God?
If you were not told that the Bible etc. - was the Word of God, but took it as face value - a human production, what would make you think there was a God?
If you were full of wonder/dismay about the circumstances of your environment, where would you look to find out information about the world?

Easy questions to ask but nearly impossible to answer since none of us (at least on this forum) have ever experienced such a reality. It’s not quite the same as asking “what if you ate chicken for dinner tonight rather than pasta?”

[quote="marjoram_blues”]I suggest that any Primary Source would be God; perhaps giving some sign to that individual…

This is exactly what Christians say happens, with Jesus, the bible, etc being those signs.

[quote="marjoram_blues”]Sometimes, this is a painful process particularly for those brought up in a religious background. Many 'believers' have doubts ( only natural) but would still live their lives self-identifying as Christian/Muslim - whatever. It is difficult to change personal and strong societal structures./quote]
I very much agree with you.

[quote="marjoram_blues”]In everyday life, it is not necessary to have read the Bible in its entirety to not believe in God. [/quote]
Well, it’s something of a baffling approach then. I confess to being mystified as to what atheists seem to be afraid of. If the bible/Qur’an/whatever just possibly might be true, it seems to me that at least one read-through would be a good idea, even if it’s just to affirm that it’s gobbledygook. But sure, for personal belief, that seems fine. Of course, it puts the atheists in a rather precarious position when they make statements with respect to the veracity of the Christian/Muslim/etc position if they don’t actually know what the position constitutes.

[quote="marjoram_blues”]I really don't know why it is so difficult to understand the position of a non-believer...?[/quote]
If this is the position I’ve communicated, I apologize. My question isn’t about why atheists believe hat they believe but about why they do not take the time to inform themselves concerning the… competition. (Especially if they plan to debate the competition as so often happens here.)

Thanks for your comments marjoram. Very thoughtful and most appreciated. I hope my responses don’t come across as belligerent. This is part of me trying to understand the “competition” and represent it fairly and accurately. [/quote][/quote]

It would be great if you could edit this to sort out the 'quotes' - thanks !

marjoram_blues wrote:It would be great if you could edit this to sort out the 'quotes' - thanks !

Ooops! I completely forgot to check that it came out right. I'll fix that right now.

EDIT: Fixed. I made one change to make sure my answer addressed your point better than it had.

ReallyStupidNot wrote: This is part of me trying to understand the “competition” and represent it fairly and accurately.

Melchior wrote:
Look: We don't owe you an explanation. There is no reason to believe in deities, the supernatural, gods, devils, angels, or souls. They don't exist. For the most part I regard the religious as something annoying, like jock itch.

You know what, this is one of the reasons I don't usually join in a philo/religio thread.
The generalised 'We' - the 'Us and Them' - the black and white thinking.
The continued lack of understanding.

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall. Wonder if it'll ever come crashing down...

marjoram_blues wrote:You know what, this is one of the reasons I don't usually join in a philo/religio thread.
The generalised 'We' - the 'Us and Them' - the black and white thinking.
The continued lack of understanding.

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall. Wonder if it'll ever come crashing down...

For my part, I think atheism vs theism is black and white. It certainly seems to me that they're in competition insofar as they are mutually exclusive propositions. But that doesn't mean I think of atheists as competitors. I try to separate ideas and people, and generally ignore those who can't. If I've presented things as "us" and "them," it's only because, on this particular point, it seems a fair delineation. But that certainly doesn't mean I put weight on the distinction beyond the confines of a particular forum post. I'd happily have coffee with you and talk about all manner of topics unrelated to philosophy/religion (except maybe professional sports in America).

marjoram_blues wrote:Imagine you coming into the world - with no input from religion. What would make you think there was a God?
If you were not told that the Bible etc. - was the Word of God, but took it as face value - a human production, what would make you think there was a God?If you were full of wonder/dismay about the circumstances of your environment, where would you look to find out information about the world?

R: Easy questions to ask but nearly impossible to answer since none of us (at least on this forum) have ever experienced such a reality. It’s not quite the same as asking “what if you ate chicken for dinner tonight rather than pasta?”

M: The key word is 'Imagine'. Think of it as a philosophical thought experiment 'Natural World II' - you find yourself with no memory of any past beliefs, experiences, on planet NWII. Look around, what do you see, paradise/hell? You can breathe, this is good; you have water, this is great; the plants are edible, fantastic. There is a variety of beings, doing what they do. Some good, some bad, depending.
You know nothing about this place, what would you do?

M: I suggest that any Primary Source would be God; perhaps giving some sign to that individual…

R: This is exactly what Christians say happens, with Jesus, the bible, etc being those signs.

M: Yes, I am aware of what some Christians believe. Why would anyone see the Bible as a sign that a God exists; it is a book, written by man.
If, on NWII, you picked up a written text, would you take it as a sign. If so, of what?

marjoram_blues wrote:In everyday life, it is not necessary to have read the Bible in its entirety to not believe in God.

R: In everyday life, perhaps, but it seems to me that if one is ultimately interested in what's true, this would be something important to do.

M: Ah, the question of 'what is true' rears its head again. Again, not necessary to read the Bible. It has its own specialised Truth. Not an everyday sense.

R: But sure, for personal belief, that seems fine. Of course, it puts the atheists in a rather precarious position when they make statements with respect to the veracity of the Christian/Muslim/etc position if they don’t actually know what the position constitutes.

M: If an atheist wished to object to the substance of a religious text, then it is good practice to be able to outline the text involved. And what it might mean for everyday practice.

marjoram_blues wrote:I really don't know why it is so difficult to understand the position of a non-believer...?

R: If this is the position I’ve communicated, I apologize. My question isn’t about why atheists believe hat they believe but about why they do not take the time to inform themselves concerning the… competition. (Especially if they plan to debate the competition as so often happens here.)

M: I understood your question to involve understanding the 'competition'.

R: Thanks for your comments marjoram. Very thoughtful and most appreciated. I hope my responses don’t come across as belligerent. This is part of me trying to understand the “competition” and represent it fairly and accurately.
M: No problem. However, I doubt I will continue this discussion. Thanks.

The quotes - I hope you can follow - I've made a bit of a dog's dinner