Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 7:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:36 pm

Nature is not accidental but deterministic at least on the level where we live our lives.

The opposite is actually true: there has not been one person in history who has been able to live for even one day, or even five minutes, as if Determinism were true. NOBODY actually “lives their lives” deterministically. Nobody. Determinism is a completely empty, completely impractical supposition.

Moreover, there can never be evidence for Determinism, because Determinism itself insists that people do not believe things because those things are true, but only because Nature predetermined everybody to believe those things. The most ardent Determinists (according to Determinism) only believe in Determinism because Nature fated them to do so. What they believe, be they scientists or the purely superstitious, is only, always because Nature predetermined them to think what they think — never because it was true.

Every natural event including the advent of men who worship their gods was a necessary event.

That won’t help you with morality. If Determinism were true, then nobody can help doing whatever it is they do. Hitler killed because he had to. People are raped because Nature predetermined them to be. Slavery is inevitable. So are elections, wars, genocides, murders…all are merely predetermined to take place. And you can’t blame the predetermined perpetrators for doing them, because they had no choice. Maybe they wouldn’t have raped, murdered or stolen if they had had any choice: but they didn’t.

All those things would follow logically from Determinism.

So it’s a very good thing nobody actually lives as if Determinism were true.

I understand you saying that what people did had to happen, if determinism is the case. Did you notice I used the past tense? Because a person murdered yesterday it's not certain they will murder tomorrow not a sign they will murder tomorrow

Statements like this make me think maybe you don’t understand what “Determinism” means.

Of course we don’t know whether or not the person will murder again. That’s not the point. The point is that when he does, or doesn’t murder again, it will be just as fated as his first murder.

The future, unlike the past, is open.

Not according to Determinism. If Determinism were true, the future would be just as closed as the past; the only difference being that humans know the past, and don’t know the future. But the future would not be less preset, less restricted, less inevitable than the past.

Lamentations 3:22-23

“The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.” Each morning is a new opportunity to reflect on God's work in your life. Each and every day, your slate is wiped clean by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

It depends on your relation to the Lord. If you have put your faith in the Lord and are forgiven by God, you are forgiven; but if you refuse to accept His forgiveness, then no such thing happens, and no such thing happens because you have chosen to refuse it. Unlike what Determinism would lead you to believe, it’s very much dependent on your chosen orientation toward God. So do you know “the love of the Lord”?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:44 pm

There is no such person as an atheist, objectively speaking. 'Atheist'is word that has changed its meaning so much that it's a word which makes sense only within a context. Therefore what you, Immanuel, have to say concerning "atheists" is circular.

You’re wrong, actually. The term “Atheist” is actually quite precise, and contains its own definition: “a-“ is the Greek particle of negation, and “theos” means “God/one of the gods.” Anybody, regardless of other particulars, who insists there are no gods of any kind is an “Atheist.”

So that’s my definition, and it’s the same as the meaning of the word.

The etymology of a word, although it's very interesting, doesn't explain how the word is used in everyday talk

It can explain how it OUGHT to be used, if people were willing to be precise. That they often are not, is neither here nor there in the matter.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:02 am I’m only quoting exactly what Belinda quoted, which was exactly what Jesus Christ Himself said. If you have an issue with that, you have an issue with Jesus Christ.

What, like Siddhartha Gautama?

Absolutely.

But, do Buddhists even go to Christian heaven or hell in the first place? Or do Buddhists have their own afterlife, complete with heaven and hell?

Do you want the Christian answer to that? Or did you want the Buddhist one? Or were you looking for a Relativistic platitude instead?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:15 pm The term “Atheist” is actually quite precise, and contains its own definition: “a-“ is the Greek particle of negation, and “theos” means “God/one of the gods.”  Anybody, regardless of other particulars, who insists there are no gods of any kind is an “Atheist.”

So that’s my definition, and it’s the same as the meaning of the word.

Let's start here:

We don’t need to. We know what the word means.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:14 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:02 am I’m only quoting exactly what Belinda quoted, which was exactly what Jesus Christ Himself said. If you have an issue with that, you have an issue with Jesus Christ.

What, like Siddhartha Gautama?

Absolutely.

Absolutely he's in Hell or absolutely he's in Limbo? And what of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and all of the many, many, many folks who went to the grave never having heard of Christ and Christianity?

This part:

Imagine three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes. The first one is successful. The folks in the first tribe accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and are baptized in the faith. The second is not successful. The folks in the second tribe refuse to accept Christ as their personal savior and instead continue to embrace their own god...their own religion. The third missionary is not even able to find the tribe he was sent out to save.

Now, imagine one member of each tribe dying on the same day a week later. What will be the fate of their souls? Will the man from the first tribe ascend to Heaven having embraced the Christian faith? Will the man from the second tribe burn in Hell for having rejected the Christian faith? And what of the man from the third tribe---he will have died never having even been made aware of the Christian faith. Where does his soul end up?

But, do Buddhists even go to Christian heaven or hell in the first place? Or do Buddhists have their own afterlife, complete with heaven and hell?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:14 pmDo you want the Christian answer to that?  Or did you want the Buddhist one? Or were you looking for a Relativistic platitude instead?

Come on, IC, you of all people here know It's not answers I am after. Instead, it's substantive and substantial evidence accumulated to confirm that the answers are applicable to all of us. 

Any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are eager to provide us with answers. 

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:15 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:15 pm The term “Atheist” is actually quite precise, and contains its own definition: “a-“ is the Greek particle of negation, and “theos” means “God/one of the gods.”  Anybody, regardless of other particulars, who insists there are no gods of any kind is an “Atheist.”

So that’s my definition, and it’s the same as the meaning of the word.

Let's start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=differe ... e&ie=UTF-8

We don’t need to. We know what the word means.

How about here then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

You can go to the dictionary -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism -- and look up the definition of Theism:

"belief in the existence of a god or gods

specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Nothing there about Christianity though.

...and then this part:

Romans 2:13-15

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 

14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 

15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Some suggest that this is Paul's...loophole?

In other words, okay, you never heard of Christianity, but you've, what, followed the law "in your heart"?

On the other hand, what on Earth does that mean? The law pertaining to what?

Then those who never heard of Jesus Christ and did not embody the law in their hearts? Savages some will call them.

it's just incomprehensible to some that God would bestow one or another punishment on men, women and children who lived out their entire life oblivious to Christianity.

Then of course those Calvinists who insist it's all completely "beyond the control" of mere mortals anyway. Who He welcomes into Heaven and sends to Hell is just one more manifestation of His mysterious ways.


This all reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode: https://youtu.be/9GbS9bO_UFo?si=rWtwj-bdE0pDIyZ-

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 12:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:14 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:14 pm

What, like Siddhartha Gautama?

Absolutely.

Absolutely he's in Hell or absolutely he's in Limbo?

Check and see…there’s no “Limbo” anywhere in the Bible. Not once.

And what of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and all of the many, many, many folks who went to the grave never having heard of Christ and Christianity?

We’re all responsible for what we know. Those who know less, have to answer for less. Those who know more, for more.

But their situation is not yours; you know much more, and are thus responsible for much more. Perhaps you should worry less about what their destiny is, and spend a little more thought on your own. I suggest it might be prudent.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:14 pmDo you want the Christian answer to that?  Or did you want the Buddhist one? Or were you looking for a Relativistic platitude instead?

Come on, IC, you of all people here know It's not answers I am after.

Then don’t ask questions. Questions imply a sincere desire for answers.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 1:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:15 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:32 pm
Let's start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=differe ... e&ie=UTF-8

We don’t need to. We know what the word means.

How about here then…

Nope, not there, either.

If you want to stipulate a new definition of your own for “Atheist,” you can. Go wild, and amuse yourself. I’m not going to. When I say “Atheist,” I mean literally somebody who insists there are no gods or God. So you understand me perfectly, there’s my definition, the same as the word means. Yours is your own problem.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:12 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:15 pm
You’re wrong, actually. The term “Atheist” is actually quite precise, and contains its own definition: “a-“ is the Greek particle of negation, and “theos” means “God/one of the gods.” Anybody, regardless of other particulars, who insists there are no gods of any kind is an “Atheist.”

So that’s my definition, and it’s the same as the meaning of the word.

The etymology of a word, although it's very interesting, doesn't explain how the word is used in everyday talk

It can explain how it OUGHT to be used, if people were willing to be precise. That they often are not, is neither here nor there in the matter.

That is an interesting idea. You have thought about it. Most people would agree with you that the etymology and usage of 'atheist' are the same. However in past times practically everyone believed in God (or a god) and not to do so was literally unthinkable.
The word 'atheist' was used to mean someone who did not believe in God the proper way , like believing something that was not doctrinal. I can't quote anything that was actually said, bur no doubt I could research actual utterances.

The word “atheist” evolved from a pejorative social label—someone flouting religious norms—to its modern meaning: someone who explicitly denies the existence of deity. The first self‑described atheist in that stronger sense appears only in the late 18th century, with earlier uses largely accusatory
Wikipedia

Do you hope to have a historical perspective on matters of belief?
.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 1:49 am ...and then this part:

Romans 2:13-15

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 

14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 

15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Some suggest that this is Paul's...loophole?

In other words, okay, you never heard of Christianity, but you've, what, followed the law "in your heart"?

On the other hand, what on Earth does that mean? The law pertaining to what?

Then those who never heard of Jesus Christ and did not embody the law in their hearts? Savages some will call them.

it's just incomprehensible to some that God would bestow one or another punishment on men, women and children who lived out their entire life oblivious to Christianity.

Then of course those Calvinists who insist it's all completely "beyond the control" of mere mortals anyway. Who He welcomes into Heaven and sends to Hell is just one more manifestation of His mysterious ways.

This all reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode: https://youtu.be/9GbS9bO_UFo?si=rWtwj-bdE0pDIyZ-

The Golden Rule. What we want, love, give. 'A new commandment I give unto you'.

accidental duplicate

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 7:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:12 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 7:45 pm
The etymology of a word, although it's very interesting, doesn't explain how the word is used in everyday talk

It can explain how it OUGHT to be used, if people were willing to be precise. That they often are not, is neither here nor there in the matter.

That is an interesting idea. You have thought about it. Most people would agree with you that the etymology and usage of 'atheist' are the same. However in past times practically everyone believed in God (or a god) and not to do so was literally unthinkable.
The word 'atheist' was used to mean someone who did not believe in God the proper way , like believing something that was not doctrinal. I can't quote anything that was actually said, bur no doubt I could research actual utterances.

I already know of such. But the word has suffered much abuse, historically, and even today is used by the incautious to signify several stages of mental confusion regarding the existence of God, gods or spirits of various kinds. This is why I, in my own usage, would return it to its literal usage. You may rely on me to mean “a person who denies the existence of God and all gods” rather than any of these confused pseudo-definitions with which the term “Atheism” has been plagued. I’m not obscuring anything: I’m making it crystal clear.

Do you hope to have a historical perspective on matters of belief?

Oh wow. Sometimes, B., you say the darndest things.

I have a much more “historical” perspective on matters of belief than most people ever will. And I’m quite confident my knowledge of the history of Atheism exceeds that which you have so far articulated. So yes, I “hope” to have such a perspective; but I perhaps need less “hope” to do that than most do.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 7:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:12 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 7:45 pm
The etymology of a word, although it's very interesting, doesn't explain how the word is used in everyday talk

It can explain how it OUGHT to be used, if people were willing to be precise. That they often are not, is neither here nor there in the matter.

That is an interesting idea. You have thought about it. Most people would agree with you that the etymology and usage of 'atheist' are the same. However in past times practically everyone believed in God (or a god) and not to do so was literally unthinkable.
The word 'atheist' was used to mean someone who did not believe in God the proper way , like believing something that was not doctrinal. I can't quote anything that was actually said, bur no doubt I could research actual utterances.

The word “atheist” evolved from a pejorative social label—someone flouting religious norms—to its modern meaning: someone who explicitly denies the existence of deity. The first self‑described atheist in that stronger sense appears only in the late 18th century, with earlier uses largely accusatory
Wikipedia

Do you hope to have a historical perspective on matters of belief?
.

I understand that Christians in ancient Rome were accused of atheism for rejecting the pantheon.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 6:21 pm I understand that Christians in ancient Rome were accused of atheism for rejecting the pantheon.

That is correct. They were called “Atheists” for failing to believe in enough gods. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to us know, and that should tell us all just how badly the word’s been abused, historically.

But it’s just as bad today. If you look up “Atheist” on the internet, you’ll find it used to refer to all kinds of things, ranging from real Atheists, to various forms of agnostics, to people who don’t think about the question at all (sometimes called “Apatheists” — ironic, because their position is supposed to be a stand on something they claim not even to care about), to Humanists (who are actually deifiers of humanity) and even to some Buddhists. Basically, the label is being bullshitted (pace H. Frankfurt) out of existence.

And understandably so. Atheism, actual Atheism ( a.k.a. the claim that no God exists), is irrational; and yet, it’s the only definitive and imperious position that allows the dismissing of the whole God discussion. So people want both to be Atheists, and yet not to be Atheists. They want to BE that, in order to insult and challenge “religious” people from a commanding position, a posture of intellectual superiority and certainty; but they certainly also don’t want to BE CAUGHT being one, since Atheism is so obviously irrational and debunkable with the simplest of questions.

So what can they do? They fudge. They fudge a lot. When they want to be strident and superior, they declare themselves to be Atheists. But when they are challenged, they retreat into some form of agnosticism, or just squirt mud into the water to keep from being identified at all. And their favourite dodge is to say something as ambiguous and silly as, “I don’t say there are no gods; I just lack belief.” And they hope that “lacking belief” is sufficiently soft and confusing to exempt them from critique.

Of course, a moment’s thought shows how silly that is. All one has to ask is, “When you say you ‘lack belief’ in God,” are you trying to make a personal declaration of your own uncertainty, or are you trying to say “I lack belief, so you ought to, as well”? The first is the only intelligent thing they could be saying, but the second is what they want you to believe. They want you to absorb with their “lacking” the implication that you ought to be “lacking” too, and, in fact, that everybody should be “lacking.” But here again, the question returns: what’s your evidentiary basis? And they have none, and don’t want to be asked to produce any. So they recirculate the same ambiguous answer: “I just lack belief; don’t ask me to explain."

So there it all is: the sorry history of the abuse of a word, including its present day vacillations. And this is why I suggest we simply do with what the word actually means. An “Atheist” is a person who says, “No gods.” Everybody else who uses the word differently is simply a different kind of weasel.