If what you are saying is that the world is awesome, then we agree.
Anything more is mere conjecture.
1 Like
@Dawnstorm the story can be customized for the individual. The questioner was trying to cover all the bases obviously. Looks like he missed a spot.
I know. I responded to this part precisely because it helped me lay out my response. A person who “worries about this a lot” presumably attaches meaning to “God” in a way that I don’t. That’s pretty much all there is to it. A minor point, hopefully helpful in the context of my post.
Yes, you can customize the scenario and respond in any way that you find appropriate. When I first listened to the conversation between what probably \iff was a devout believer and the atheist, I was clueless about what the point was, until I heard, “Yes, I worry about that a lot.”
Two points need to be clarified before proceeding here.
-
What do you mean by God? Who or what is he/she? Which God are you talking about?
-
What do you mean by “God exists”? What does “exist” mean?
They’re partially included, as a small fraction. They also outnumber philosophy majors by a decent margin and by a rather huge margin at the graduate level, so them having slim representation is not itself representative. Granted, some divinity programs are pretty light on ethics and their philosophy core, but many or not.
And it goes the other way too. Augustine and Thomas would not be considered philosophers today. Eriugena, Iamblichus, Plotinus, would be more at home in other fields (although they also wouldn’t fit at a modern university at all).
So the shift in definition works in both ways.
Obviously,philosophical opinions among the educated have indeed changed on many issues, be it God, metaphysics, etc. My point is merely that the definition of a philosopher has also been changed and truncated, so that it doesn’t include many of the people studying/teaching on areas once considered philosophy. In particular, religious philosophy has been channeled into religious studies and theology programs, while religious orders (once the center of philosophy in the West) are now typically excluded entirely. David Bentley Hart and John Milbank, for instance, wouldn’t qualify since they are theologians teaching theology courses, but clearly they are philosophers in any expansive sense not based on academic silos.
1 Like
Let us establish the precise, functional definition of “atheism” at the human, intentional level:
The word atheism is merely a pathetic linguistic trap invented by believers to totalize their own supernatural neurosis.
The trick is simple: either you believe in their “God” insanity, or you are categorized strictly by your refusal of it. By forcing this binary, they ensure that no matter what you actually think or how you conceptualize Reality, your entire intellectual identity is forced to relate back to the delusional imagination of the believer.
It is the ultimate narcissistic hostage situation. I refuse to define my metaphysics by the absence of someone else’s hallucination.
To my knowledge atheism is by definition lack of belief in God or Gods.
However there are atheists that take it to another level, by “believing” God doesn’t exist.
This new form of atheism has a name, it’s called “new atheism”:
This is not what atheism really is in its true definition.
Basically for an atheist there shouldn’t be need to “believe” whether God does not exists.
Therefore we two forms of atheism.
NB: For me, atheism means the belief that '(a) God exists – like e.g. a five-sided triangle or flat earth or face in a cloud – only in the mind of a (true) believer’.
Antitheist.
1 Like
If we were to say that the “lack belief” definition of Atheism were true, we would need to look at what a belief is. I define belief as the individually held position that a certain proposition is either true or false. So if this were the definition of belief, then to say that one holds a certain proposition is true or false would be to say that you have a reason as you why you believe, or don’t believe, that proposition. For example, I could hold a belief on some matters, such as the possibility that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK. If you said that you believed this to someone, then undoubtedly, they would ask you, “Why do you believe that?” And if you just say, “I just believe it,” then you might be looked at as a tool, who accepts ridiculous positions even without reason to do so. But if you were to cite background information on the case, on matters regarding the president’s security, or something else which you could use to make a case for why you would think there was involvement in the assassination, then people might still think you’re wrong, and may make a somewhat more cogent counterargument against your position, but at least they’ll think, possibly, that you’ve genuinely tried to come to a reasonable conclusion on your belief, and so accept it as an actual belief that exists.
So if this is what constitutes a belief, then to say that you lack a belief in something would be to say that you lack the things constituting a belief, which includes, in my example, justification in support for, or against, a proposition. So if Atheism is a lack of belief in the proposition that God exists, then what you’re saying is that you also lack reasons to think that God exists. Like, if I said that I lack a belief in the earth being round, then I would be saying that I don’t have reasons to think that the earth is round. If this is true, then Atheism, defined as a lack of belief, would essentially be a type of Agnosticism, where you are merely ignorant of the facts in support of a proposition, rather than truly opposed to them. If this is true, then essentially all of the biggest Atheists—Like J.L Mackie, Graham Oppy, Michael Tooley, William Rowe—would not be Atheists, for they have reasons to think that Theism is false, rather than reject Theism due to ignorance. Even Graham Oppy rejects the lack of belief definition of Atheism, and states simply that Atheism is the stance that no God/Gods exist. And if Atheism is truly a stance that is a negation of the Proposition that God exists, then it is a belief, and so requires its own burden of proof, regardless of what lack of belief Atheists may suggest.
It’s difficult, yes, but comparatively easier. Atheism-theism used to be hot topic a decade or so ago. Now the fervor has petered out, except maybe in the US of A. Europe is already majority atheism and there’s reports of a resurgence of paganism.
Yes, here too you’re not wrong. Descartes was deeply concerned about a Deus Malus. Since it seems you have, at the very least, some interest in philosophy, this should come as a relief to you. I think we can frame the whole philosophical enterprise as a struggle against The Great Deceiver and his minions.
Went off on a gnostic tangent there. Deus Bono presides over the world. Whence cometh happiness?
I agree with most of what you say, especially the general sentiment that the statement “God exists” is truth apt, but I disagree with one thing:
Well the first attribute you listed there is absolutely nonsensical. Necessary existence? Ugh. The desire people have to define their mythology into existence is just silly.
I suppose so, yes. It’s odd that so many scientists/philosophers/mathematicians/thinkers are theists.
A perfectly valid answer, although some might disagree. I fully agree on your second point as well. Have you watched James Randi footage? James Randi videos are medicine for the soul.
I pointed out that amongst academic philosophers there is a remarkable level of agreement on the existence of god. In response you point out that a different group of people have a different opinion.
Ok.
I often wonder if it matters whether a God exists or not.
Most people answer this question using a preexisting frame for theism already, so they seem to have determined that not only is there a god, but that they know something about it.
It’s what folk do, that makes meaning.
Now amongst the stuff they do is talking and writing. So that has meaning, too. So it’s not that the various discussions here are without any significance.
It should be noted that, like the various arms manufacturers the world over, god seems to be on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East and in Ukraine.
So if your point is that he’s not of much use in sorting out such issues, I’ll agree.
2 Likes
It is! I continue to be interested in informal logic and other forms of credulity that are less philosophical for this reason.
As you said, and explained prior:
“Credulity”, or in loftier language, “Inference to the Best Explanation” is something I’ve frequently pondered. It’s clearly not deductive, and so invalid in the way you’ve used that term.
The deflection in that thread was an appeal to informal logic, but this is getting off topic from this thread.
Sorry @JosephHugh for the divergence.
Straightforwardly to your question:
I agree with your position as an agnostic atheist.
A term of art I picked up from the previous forum is “apatheist”, which I like only when pressed or thinking about philosophy and such. It means “I don’t care that God exists, or that he does not exist – I will live my life in the manner as I see fit”
1 Like
There was for a while a Church of the Apathetic Agnostic, whose motto was “We don’t know and we don’t care”.
Oooo… found a link: https://apatheticagnostic.org
2 Likes
Huh!
Looks interesting to me.
thanks for the link, Apathetic agnosticism is fun and much better than raw agnosticism but it is still agnosticism, it suffer the same lack of courage against the superstitious supernatural moronic imaginations. Do you remember when you teared down insects, detached the wings of a fly and see it pathetically walking? That’s what should be done with the “God” thing. Do you want a demonstration 
?