Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[blü 2]

The fact that we humans conceptualize such a source, and wish to communicate that concept to others, justifies the existence of the term.

So all you're talking about is a concept, not an entity at all?

The truth is 'what is'. Reality is what we think 'is', is. Reality is all we have of the truth, and it's ultimately imaginary: it's conceptual.

You don't behave as though you think reality is merely conceptual. You breath real air, for example. You think your parents are real, for example. You post on RF, for example.

A lot of humans fail to recognize this, however, and so believe that their imagined conception of reality is 'what is' ... is the truth. And believing this gives them comfort, and supports their egos when they would otherwise have to face the profound ignorance and vulnerability of their human condition.

Those folks sound unfortunate, don't they. Has no one explained the working philosophy of reasoned enquiry and scientific method to them? It's never too late to understand that there are no absolutes and that truth is our best opinion for the time being.

Incidentally, what definition of 'truth' do you use?

 

[PureX]

So all you're talking about is a concept, not an entity at all?

"Entity" is a concept.

You don't behave as though you think reality is merely conceptual. You breath real air, for example. You think your parents are real, for example. You post on RF, for example.

We have to go with what we've got. That doesn't mean we have to pretend it's something that it's not.

Those folks sound unfortunate, don't they. Has no one explained the working philosophy of reasoned enquiry and scientific method to them? It's never too late to understand that there are no absolutes and that truth is our best opinion for the time being.

Sure, but they still think their opined reality is 'what is'. They ignore the difference between their conceived opinion of truth, and truth. We all do this to some degree, of course, just out of cognitive negligence. But many do it persistently, and determinedly, so as to believe that they 'own the truth'. And both religion, and 'scientism' are designed to help them do this.

Incidentally, what definition of 'truth' do you use?

As stated above: the truth is 'what is'.

 

[Audie]

It wasn't me she was addressing, it was the OP. Fortunately, I believe she put me on ignore a long time ago.



You seem to have got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

To clarify:

1. The word atheism is polysemic thus has multiple definitions in common usage
2. For various reasons, different people prefer different definitions, but none of them are the One True Meaning.
3. Some atheists seem to operate under the assumption that their subjective preference for one of these definitions is actually an objective fact, and that people using any of the other common usages are 'wrong', or 'misquoting' and are also mendacious for doing so.

"Some" seems like a step back, but the example has not been
fortcoming.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not at all.

Are you not familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant, or do you simply find it impossible to understand?

I must be faithful to the revelation of God that I have received. But I acknowledge that others have perceptions of God that differ from mine. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If that's intended as an accurate statement about reality, on the basis of what evidence acceptable to physics do you make it?

It is not a matter of physics but of metaphysics. If God is the source from which has flowed the universe, then he is not the universe, and thus is not subject to physics.

Sensed, by the senses? Then [he]'s detectable, and you'll be able to give a satisfactory demonstration of [his] objective existence. (Though if that were the case I suspect I'd have heard of it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.)
.

We are not talking about the five senses here. Whatever it is that is sensing God, we know so little about it that we cannot even discuss it past saying that God can be sensed imperfectly. If we were to continue to evolve, this might go somewhere. However, it looks like our physical evolution has forever stopped, as we are now dependent upon culture and technology for bettering our adaptation.

 

[blü 2]

"Entity" is a concept.

Indeed it is. I was using it as a generic for sentient beings who are real / have objective existence / exist in nature / are not imaginary / would still exist even if no brain held the concept of them.

We have to go with what we've got. That doesn't mean we have to pretend it's something that it's not.

But that's just the point ─ if it's not imaginary, it's real, and if it's real, what is it?

the truth is 'what is'.

Do you then agree with the definition I use? Namely: a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds to / conforms with / accurately reflects objective reality.

 

[Polymath257]

I know. Please read what I wrote again. "That is also clearly not adding two things that are equal."

Again, that was my point. They were equal volumes added together. But the fact that one was water and one was alcohol negated the applicability of the math.

Technically, you are correct.

Technically, if I go to kiss a beautiful woman, my lips get closer and closer to hers, but never actually touch.

But I get close enough for all intents and purposes.

My point again. It is only by repeated testing that we know how close is close enough.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not a matter of physics but of metaphysics. If God is the source from which has flowed the universe, then he is not the universe, and thus is not subject to physics.

Well, that is a claim. But if pantheism is correct, then the universe does 'flow from God's existence' while it is still the case that God is the universe and is subject to the laws of physics.

But, of course, this all assumes the existence of a God or gods. Not such an easy thing to establish.

We are not talking about the five senses here. Whatever it is that is sensing God, we know so little about it that we cannot even discuss it past saying that God can be sensed imperfectly. If we were to continue to evolve, this might go somewhere. However, it looks like our physical evolution has forever stopped, as we are now dependent upon culture and technology for bettering our adaptation.

Which sense are you wanting to talk about? I know of no 'God sense' that can detect supernatural beings. Would you care to demonstrate its use? How do you know it is reliable at all if it gives such imperfect information?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you not familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant, or do you simply find it impossible to understand?

It's trivial to understand. The question is whether the story reflects reality. If all you have is the interpretations of the blind men, why would you assume there is an elephant?

I must be faithful to the revelation of God that I have received. But I acknowledge that others have perceptions of God that differ from mine. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

How was that revelation received? How do you know it can be trusted? How do you know you interpreted your experience correctly?

 

[blü 2]

It is not a matter of physics but of metaphysics. If God is the source from which has flowed the universe, then he is not the universe, and thus is not subject to physics.

OR, the the Big Bang contained only mass-energy, and all the entities and processes of the universe are accordingly forms and properties of mass-energy; in which case God like the universe is physics. OR (&c)

We are not talking about the five senses here.

Then might I respectfully suggest you don't use the verb 'sense' in this context, since it indeed refers to the [proverbially five] senses.

Whatever it is that is sensing God, we know so little about it that we cannot even discuss it past saying that God can be sensed imperfectly.

OR, God is a product of the imagination of the individual, the personification of an ideal being (the basic details varying from culture to culture); OR (&c).

If we were to continue to evolve, this might go somewhere. However, it looks like our physical evolution has forever stopped, as we are now dependent upon culture and technology for bettering our adaptation.

I think the next step after H sap sap (us) will be H sap mechanicus. If we ever get to colonize other planets, visit other stars, it won't be done by existing versions of H sap sap.

 

[Willamena]

Well, when you said, "So it's true, you do believe that no one actually believes in God," it sure sounded like you were putting words in my mouth.

That was my opinion, though. I seriously doubt it would be yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Excellent, so we must agree that someone who clarifies they are using a word according to an established definition is not 'wrong'.

The person who tries to restrict usage to only one meaning is wrong.

Only if they also state that other definitions are objectively 'wrong'.

Which is generally what happens in arguments over definitions of atheism: people argue against the "lack of belief" argument on the grounds that rejection of belief is needed to be an atheist.

It's as ridiculous as someone arguing that a crane can't be used to describe a piece of construction equipment because a crane is a bird.

People can use whichever definition floats their boat, they are not obliged to use all definitions at all times. The OP clarified how he wanted to use the term.

Many people in the thread clarified how they were using the term.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which sense are you wanting to talk about? I know of no 'God sense' that can detect supernatural beings. Would you care to demonstrate its use? How do you know it is reliable at all if it gives such imperfect information?

There is a portion of the brain that lights up during religious experiences. It's an avenue that is being followed in science, but is still in its infancy.

 

[Polymath257]

There is a portion of the brain that lights up during religious experiences. It's an avenue that is being followed in science, but is still in its infancy.

And what induces that area to 'light up'? Remember that areas of the brain also light up when we imagine things.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's trivial to understand. The question is whether the story reflects reality. If all you have is the interpretations of the blind men, why would you assume there is an elephant?

Because every once in an era, a great religious mind comes along who is able to fit, at least for a moment, all the pieces of the puzzle together. The trouble is, an experience like that is impossible to put into words, and always gets misunderstood by those who listen to it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And what induces that area to 'light up'? Remember that areas of the brain also light up when we imagine things.

Different studies have used different things. You'll have to research this on your own, as it would make a post that is too long, and, quite frankly, I don't want to spend THAT much time doing the research on the specifics.

 

[Polymath257]

Because every once in an era, a great religious mind comes along who is able to fit, at least for a moment, all the pieces of the puzzle together. The trouble is, an experience like that is impossible to put into words, and always gets misunderstood by those who listen to it.

Either that or the 'great religious mind' was simply wrong and/or delusional.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Either that or the 'great religious mind' was simply wrong and/or delusional.

Sure, and Einstein could be wrong as well.

I don't think these great religious minds are wrong, because we are able to go somewhere based on what they have given us. Just as Monotheism was a great improvement over polytheism, the idea that we are all imperfectly perceiving the same God is bringing us to a higher level of understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, and Einstein could be wrong as well.

Yes, of course. That is why we have other people *test* his ideas. We *try* to see where they fail.

I don't think these great religious minds are wrong, because we are able to go somewhere based on what they have given us. Just as Monotheism was a great improvement over polytheism, the idea that we are all imperfectly perceiving the same God is bringing us to a higher level of understanding.

And how would we mortals determine if they are right or wrong? Is there any *test* we can do that would show whether they are right or not? How about a test to determine when they might be wrong?

if not, this is just speculation and not knowledge, as far as I can tell. Good for drinks with friends, but not ultimately meaningful.

 

[Audie]

There is a portion of the brain that lights up during religious experiences. It's an avenue that is being followed in science, but is still in its infancy.

"Religious experiences"?

Science is following this?