Page 9 of 31
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:37 pm
by duszek
I was trying to avoid the problem of "atheists denying the existence of something".
The fact is that someone "claims" something.
One group says that the other group suffers or from an illusion (or delusion if you prefer) or immerses itself in it.
This is the best you can get, in a nutshell, without negative and therefore logicaly problamatic terms like "denying" etc.
It´s clear.
I was trying to help the atheist camp (which is not mine) a little bit to get the discussion forward.
I apologize for my lousy English and thank you for tolerating me.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:53 pm
by ReliStuPhD
duszek wrote:I was trying to avoid the problem of "atheists denying the existence of something".
I don't think that's a problem you need to avoid. So far as I know, both atheists and theists are quite comfortable with this articulation. That is to say, they both appear to agree that atheists deny the existence of God.
duszek wrote:The fact is that someone "claims" something.
That's a helpful clarification. Thank you.
duszek wrote:One group says that the other group suffers or from an illusion (or delusion if you prefer) or immerses itself in it.
Yes, I agree.
duszek wrote:This is the best you can get, in a nutshell, without negative and therefore logicaly problamatic terms like "denying" etc.
I'm not sure I agree, but I can see what you're after. An interesting solution, indeed.
duszek wrote:It´s clear.
Maybe.
duszek wrote:I was trying to help the atheist camp (which is not mine) a little bit to get the discussion forward.
Don't. Hoist them on their own petard whenever you can.
duszek wrote:I apologize for my lousy English and thank you for tolerating me.
I am certain that your english is better than my knowledge of your native tongue (unless it's French, in which case, I do OK). No apologies are necessary.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:22 pm
by duszek
I hope that you were not ironic. Or not very much.
"Denying the existence of something" presents similar problems as "not thinking of a pink elephant".
I can shut up if I am disturbing. No hard feelings.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:45 pm
by Immanuel Can
I apologize for my lousy English and thank you for tolerating me.
Your English is fine. We don't make someone wrong for that sort of paltry reason.
But the definition is still insufficient. It takes for granted that "religious" people are deluded, and doesn't prove it; and it takes for granted that Atheism itself can be warranted as a knowledge claim without proof. That's the problem.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:56 pm
by duszek
The definition does not take for granted that religious people are deluded.
It says what atheism "claims" to be the case. Only the claiming is stated and the content of the claiming. The content of the claiming is put in a nutshell, like Dawkins put it in the title of his book.
It is difficult to prove the existence of God and the non-existence of the same.
If it ever were successful one of the two opposing camps would sink into oblivion and the discussion would cease naturally.
You can hardly put a proof of the existence of God into a definition.
That´s why I suggest that atheism is a thesis, a claim, a statement of something very specific but that cannot be proven sufficiently.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:30 pm
by ReliStuPhD
duszek wrote:I hope that you were not ironic. Or not very much.
Not at all.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:39 am
by thedoc
“All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.”
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:46 am
by ReliStuPhD
His is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:51 am
by thedoc
Jaques:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
As You Like It Act 2, scene 7, 139–143
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:52 am
by thedoc
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:49 am
by ReliStuPhD
"You cram these words into mine ears against the stomach of my sense."
-The Tempest
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:59 am
by Immanuel Can
Or,
"Who is this that darkens counsel,
By words without knowledge..."
(God, to Job, in 38:2)
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 5:01 am
by ReliStuPhD
Immanuel Can wrote:Or,
"Who is this that darkens counsel,
By words without knowledge..."
(God, to Job, in 38:2)
You just
had to bring the Bible into this, didn't you?
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:19 pm
by Immanuel Can
You just had to bring the Bible into this, didn't you?
I never had to bring it. Wherever you look, it's already there.
Re: What should religion be based on?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:32 pm
by Ginkgo
Immanuel Can wrote:Ginko:
It's odd, but this Wiki doesn't answer the question. It doesn't even really try to. All it says is, "A lot of people are arguing X, Y and Z."
I think we can be a bit smarter than that. I think we can figure it out. So let me put to you the key question: If a version of Atheism admits the possibility of a God or gods, is it really Atheism?
People like (our Hobbes and Richard Dawkins) definitely insist is isn't. But what about you?
Or is it Agnosticism (the Hard or Soft versions, as per Flew and Martin)?
Or is it just and expression of total ignorance, as in the case of d' Holbach and Smith?
One thing we can settle for sure: if "Atheism" means the categorical statement "there is no God," then it's irrational and unwarranted at best, stupid and stubborn at worst. And this is one of the few areas in which I would go with Dawkins, who denies such Atheism -- wisely too, for he knows it cannot be defended at all. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyf1RxWBS0I
So...your definition of "Atheist" would be helpful. Then we could be on common ground. And it is....?
My definition of positive and negative atheism won't be found anywhere because I just made it up.
I see the difference between positive and negative atheism as the difference between (1) eliminationism and (2)scientific realism.
(1) Elimination is a form of anti-realism that denies the existence of aether, miasma, Lamarckian evolution, Platonic Forms, God(s). It is denial of such things because there are no arguments of any type that can successfully support such theories.
(2)The value of a scientific theory can be found in terms of it's usefulness in uncovering scientific knowledge. Theories such as things as Aether, miasma, God(s) at this stage haven't attributed anything towards prediction.
You are welcome to pull my definition apart.