Atheism

[GryffinSong]

I think that one of the problems with atheism is that a lot of secular culture is pretty grim. That does not make it false, it just makes it impractical. I am not saying the faith based culture is necessarily superior, but in a junkyard aka "civilisation" anything that gives me a ride will do.

I'm really curious what you mean by this, because I find that much of art, music, theater, nature, and much more is secular in nature. I walk in the forest and admire the contrast between a fern and the stone behind it. I relish the sounds of a bird singing to its mate. I look with awe at a great blue heron fishing at the side of the river. I create a work of art based on my experience with cancer, and it affects someone so strongly that they get chills. I hear a song that resonates with me and I feel comforted ...

I could go on all day. These experiences are rich with meaning, not grim at all. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by secular culture, but much of a society's culture has nothing to do with god or religion. It has to do with the expression of our experience, and much, much more.

 

[sandwiches]

To the same extent that ANY two would be comparable. Forget my wife for now, deal with this:

That which cannot be defined can still be discussed, whether particularized love or the particularized taste for okra. That's why we have the word "ineffable," which can be both defined and discussed.

Then, make sure not to tell me people anything to the effect of "That's not the God I believe in" or "God would never do that!" Without a clear definition, people are merely talking past each other.

Another problem of not properly defining things is that most theists like to equivocate quite a bit. The good ol' standby of "God is love" is one of my favorites. "If you have ever felt love, you've felt God."

 

[Davian]

For what? I don't see any ball, metaphorical or otherwise.

Then without a robust definition, the term 'transcendent' would appear to be without significance.

Thank you.

Of course. I use words with meaning when discussing anything with anyone. And as I said, I can used those words to discuss that which I cannot define, i.e. my love for my wife, thus disputing the contention that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed.

You only declared that *you* could not define a word such as 'love'. Others may be able to.

Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?

No. Have you read any of his writings?

So to answer a question, you simply refer to someone with whom you don't agree? Strange.

I thought you might find support for your ideas in his writings.

Absolutely. I do not confuse the conveyance system with that which is conveyed. Of course, you are positing the opposite. Neither one of us will be able to prove our postulates.

It is a misconception that science can 'prove' anything, and I am not making any claims about how the brain works at this time beyond what is parsimonious.

What evidence do you have that would suggest that there might be something other than the brain that would be required for what you describe as 'feelings'?

My case? No, I specifically asked you to give me an example of how a discussion about one's love for one's wife might somehow manifest an inability to discuss that which cannot be defined.

Link please. As I recall:

Stiggywiggy: "You had said that I posited the existence of the transcendent. You fail to show where I did that..."

In post # 150: "They transcend the empirical realm".

Your claim, your case.

So what are you busting a gut about in this discussion?

Perhaps when you have grokked the ignostic viewpoint.

Put it this way: in a fight between Superman and Batman, who would win?

Why would I do that? I don't even know you. In fact the idea that I might take a laughing emoticon from you personally just might deserve a laughing emoticon of its own.

Go for it. Laughter is a healthy thing to do. That is why I am here.

 

[quatona]

Wrong, as usual. I never said a thing about feelings. Let me refresh your memory. Someone here claimed that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed. I gave an example which contradicts that: I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I can discuss it.

So it was you who brought up your love.

Then why did you bring up my feelings then?

You did, as you have readily admitted above.

That must be because you got in the discussion late or something, and perhaps missed the reason for bringing it up. So you don't like the wife example? OK, try my love of okra. I cannot define the taste, yet I can discuss it.

Can you? I don´t know how to discuss taste.

So you need to already know about X before you can listen to someone else discuss X? So either (a). you've never learned anything or (b). you were born knowing what you now know.

As soon as someone has defined their terms I could learn a thing or two about ideas I hadn´t heard of before. Until then, not so much.

 

[RobinRobyn]

Correct. The American jury system agrees with that position.

Quite the contrary. Trials are based on evidence, not unsupportable "transcendental" experience.

It's special pleading only in the sense that I am pleading with you to exercise some common sense. Obviously if 2 billion people claim that Elvis never died, but has been seen recently, only an idiot would give equal weight to the same claim made by a mere hundred or so.

If they can't prove it in some way, why give the claim any weight at all?

You can't know. That should be obvious. In fact it's tautological. If we can't know that X is real, we can't know that X is real. (What strange questions you ask.)

Then what difference does it make how many people believe this unknowable thing? Why give their beliefs any weight at all?

So you don't find testimonies about experiences with Jesus to be unbelievable?

I believe these people have had an experience of some kind.

Sorry. I mistook you for an atheist.

I don't conform to the way you define an atheist in your initial post, but I don't believe in Jesus Christ, no.

Well we certainly agree on that. Popularity of a belief surely cannot offer proof for that belief. Whatever guy you've mixed me up with, who is contending such nonsense, let me know and we'll go after him together.

You just said:

"Obviously if 2 billion people claim that Elvis never died, but has been seen recently, only an idiot would give equal weight to the same claim made by a mere hundred or so."

I haven't mixed you up with anyone.

What years did Leda and Alcmene walk the earth?

I don't have exact dates, they lived in Ancient Greece. It doesn't matter, though. They were part of a society that believed Zeus was real, you and others believe Jesus Christ is real. I see no difference.

Yes, the principle is the same as that of our justice system, which instructs us to give more weight to 20 unprovable testimonies than we do to 2 unprovable testimonies.

And how much weight is a jury supposed to give to these unprovable testimonies? Could you give me an example of an unprovable testimony that some jury gave weight to because a number of people believed it?

No. Why would you think that which is POSITED as unprovable can be proven?

You said you'd believe a Nigerian prince if someone received money from one. Since no one has received money, or anything like it from Jesus Christ, that shows you give special weight to claims about Jesus than you do for those about Nigerian Princes. That's special pleading.

 

[A2SG]

Put it this way: in a fight between Superman and Batman, who would win?

Batman, of course!

-- A2SG, Supes would fight fair, Bats would fight to win....

 

[Davian]

Batman, of course!

-- A2SG, Supes would fight fair, Bats would fight to win....

Batman for the win!

Given time to prepare, Bats will always win.

Let's see which one Stiggy sides with....

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm really curious what you mean by this, because I find that much of art, music, theater, nature, and much more is secular in nature. I walk in the forest and admire the contrast between a fern and the stone behind it. I relish the sounds of a bird singing to its mate. I look with awe at a great blue heron fishing at the side of the river. I create a work of art based on my experience with cancer, and it affects someone so strongly that they get chills. I hear a song that resonates with me and I feel comforted ...

I could go on all day. These experiences are rich with meaning, not grim at all. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by secular culture, but much of a society's culture has nothing to do with god or religion. It has to do with the expression of our experience, and much, much more.

By secular culture I mean in part a lot of pop culture I find awful. Pulp fiction, rubbishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyed up violence, music where make up and looking "cool" sell records like its more of an a image contest, and the recording industry that has helped destroy localised live folk traditions and replaced them with banal "pop stars". My present gripe is that the only "live folk sing-song" style music I get to participate in is in the congregation singing hymns etc at my local church, and whatdyaknow, I am targeted as a deluded mental cripple worshipping imaginary fairies for doing so. This is just messed up. I could go on.

I am glad you find beauty in nature/creation. In fact I was so stressed yesterday I took a trip into the countryside and focusing on the scenery cleared away al that negative conceptual thought.

Positive today, yeah +++, ty. I can't live too long with my own gripeing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

By secular culture I mean in part a lot of pop culture I find awful. Pulp fiction, rubbishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyed up violence, music where make up and looking "cool" sell records like its more of an a image contest, and the recording industry that has helped destroy localised live folk traditions and replaced them with banal "pop stars".

I'm just as much annoyed by the awfulness of those aspects of pop culture as you are. I'll be damned (so to speak) if I know what any of that has to do with atheism.

Some sort of shallow and vulgar pop culture has existed in every society, as far as I can tell. It's just a feature of human society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

By secular culture I mean in part a lot of pop culture I find awful. Pulp fiction, rubbishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyed up violence, music where make up and looking "cool" sell records like its more of an a image contest, and the recording industry that has helped destroy localised live folk traditions and replaced them with banal "pop stars".

So, popular culture is "secular" culture? Banal pop stars, pulp fiction, rubishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyped up music and violence occurs in religious cultures (if that's the opposite of a "secular culture." Watch TBN or any of the other "religious" channels and get back to me.

My present gripe is that the only "live folk sing-song" style music I get to participate in is in the congregation singing hymns etc at my local church, and whatdyaknow, I am targeted as a deluded mental cripple worshipping imaginary fairies for doing so. This is just messed up. I could go on.

So, you're upset with "secular culture" because you only get to sing music you like in a setting where following ancient mythology and superstition is norm? Sounds like you got a chip on your shoulder.

 

[Cabal]

So, popular culture is "secular" culture? Banal pop stars, pulp fiction, rubishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyped up music and violence occurs in religious cultures (if that's the opposite of a "secular culture." Watch TBN or any of the other "religious" channels and get back with me.

Yeah, the music may be hyped in the secular music industry, but I think the phrase "Christian rock" makes the counter-point pretty well.

 

[GryffinSong]

By secular culture I mean in part a lot of pop culture I find awful. Pulp fiction, rubbishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyed up violence, music where make up and looking "cool" sell records like its more of an a image contest, and the recording industry that has helped destroy localised live folk traditions and replaced them with banal "pop stars". My present gripe is that the only "live folk sing-song" style music I get to participate in is in the congregation singing hymns etc at my local church, and whatdyaknow, I am targeted as a deluded mental cripple worshipping imaginary fairies for doing so. This is just messed up. I could go on.

I don't like it either, and I think assuming the people into those things are secular is a stretch that I'd not like to make.

I am glad you find beauty in nature/creation. In fact I was so stressed yesterday I took a trip into the countryside and focusing on the scenery cleared away al that negative conceptual thought.

Positive today, yeah +++, ty. I can't live too long with my own gripeing.

Yay! I love the outdoors. It's such a balm to irritated nerves. If it weren't pouring rain today I'd go out for a hike today with my dogs.

 

[keith99]

I disagree! After years of study and observation, I give zero (0) weight to the possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experienced by millions and I give zero(0) weight to the possibility of such claims by the mere five, thus they are given the same weight.

Your claim that I should give some weight to one claim simply because millions believe it is suggesting that you believe popularity should be considered as some sort of an indicator of truth.

Ken

Might I point out a situation where I would give more weight to the testimony of a few than millions.

If millions had claimed to have seen Bigfoot here in California and only a handfull had claimed to have seen the Yeti in Tibet AND in both situations no physical evidence had been produced I would give more weight to the Yeti sightings.

If only a few see something out in hard to get to places it is more reasonable that no physical evidence would be found than if millions see it just a few hundred feet of major California Highways.

Of course there is another case, the reliability of the witnesses. I can easily think of cases where I would trust 5 friends over a million strangers of questionable rationality.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Can Shakespeare NOT transcend his own works?
​

I didn't know Christians worshiped Shakespeare as a transcendent god.

That's a good thing. It's always best not to KNOW that which is not true.

However, I do know that answering a question with a question isn't really an answer.

Sure it can be. In fact, we see an example here. Your question implied the non-existence of the transcendent, so I asked if Shakespeare transcended his own works. He does you know, thereby refuting any belief you might have that transcendence may not exist.

 

[stiggywiggy]

It looks like you're telling me that you should give more weight to the religious testimony of Buddhists than people of your own denomination. That makes me wonder why you're not Buddhist.

Because I 'm a Christian. Only an idiot would embrace a religion based on popularity of belief. And only an idiot would give zero consideration for even the remote possibility that a belief held by billions could be true.

Seems like it would be the correct thing to do if the number of people believing in something correlated with how much weight we should give to personal testimony.

I agree. That's kinda what I've been saying all along. Weigh the belief which you don't believe, don't just accept it as the gospel truth.

 

[stiggywiggy]

since 2/3 of the world do NOT experience the truth of Christianity, surely it is false.

"Since," as in "therefore??"

So I guess SINCE most of the world in the sixth century did not experience the reality of other galaxies, surely they are false??

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

To the same extent that ANY two would be comparable. Forget my wife for now, deal with this:

That which cannot be defined can still be discussed, whether particularized love or the particularized taste for okra. That's why we have the word "ineffable," which can be both defined and discussed.
​

Then, make sure not to tell me people anything to the effect of "That's not the God I believe in" or "God would never do that!"

OK, since I've never done that, that advice should be easy to take.

Without a clear definition, people are merely talking past each other.

Not really. In fact, I already gave an example to the contrary. I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I've discussed it with people who did not "talk past each other."

 

[keith99]

Yay! I love the outdoors. It's such a balm to irritated nerves. If it weren't pouring rain today I'd go out for a hike today with my dogs.

I take it leaving the dogs behind for a hike is not an option?

Hiking in the rain (for a few hours) is rather fun.

Trying to clean and dry the dogs afterwards is not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Since," as in "therefore??"

So I guess SINCE most of the world in the sixth century did not experience the reality of other galaxies, surely they are false??

You miss the point.

The point is that argument from a quantity of testimonies is not a useful measure of anything. The example shows that "surely Christianity is false" follows from the majority of the world not experiencing it. AND, you would do well to reject such an argument.

And THEREFORE, you should understand why we reject the argument that Christianity is true because some number of people think it is or think they've experienced Jesus.

Any argument from popularity is bad and that's why it has its own name: Argumentum ad populum.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Thank you.

Of course. I use words with meaning when discussing anything with anyone. And as I said, I can used those words to discuss that which I cannot define, i.e. my love for my wife, thus disputing the contention that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed.
​

You only declared that *you* could not define a word such as 'love'.

No, I didn't. I said that I cannot define the love I had for my wife.

Others may be able to.

I seriously doubt that others can DEFINE the love I had for my wife.




Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?
​

No.

OK. Thanks for the belated admission. So now we have this: you did not forget that I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed." You did not forget that in answer to that, you told me to ask Kant.

Does this mean that you cannot explain what you've asserted?

What evidence do you have that would suggest that there might be something other than the brain that would be required for what you describe as 'feelings'?

None. I also have no evidence to the contrary. Nor do you. If a creature existed who lived all his life inside the hood of a car, he might mistakenly think that the fundamental CAUSE of the car's motion comes from the uncaused movement of pistons in a cylinder. That's because he is unable to see a more fundamental cause: A FOOT ON AN ACCELERATOR.

As I recall:

stiggywiggy: "You had said that I posited the existence of the transcendent. You fail to show where I did that..."

In post # 150: "They transcend the empirical realm".

Your claim, your case.

??? Why didn't you put the entire #150 quote up? You are hallucinating positing there. I NEVER posited the existence of the non-transcendent. You are quite wrong. I did state the obvious in #150: IF, IF, IF, IF, IF (no positing there) a non-empirical realm exists, it transcends the empirical.

Put it this way: in a fight between Superman and Batman, who would win?

???? I have no idea how that question could possibly shed any light on whether or not a non-empirical realm would by definition transcend the empirical. You don't even attempt to flesh out these associations that are apparently only in your mind.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7608800-21/#post59208837