"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." (Page 1 of 3)

The definition of faith is belief without evidence. if you need evidence for faith, you have no faith. The definition of atheism is evidence without meaning. If you believe only in evidence, you know no meaning. To me, atheism is as arrogant as religion, they both presume to know the absolute truth. Quantum physics proves agnosticism: there is only the observer, God and not-God. Both are true. Both are false. If you can live in both, both are reality.

Of course, a controlling factor. A reason why things happen, whether a secular conspiracy theory or a more traditional religion. Whether bad or good, someone is in control of it all, as opposed to a random universe of cold violence. So of course soieties use religion, or the fear of a world without it as a tool to rule. But that doesn't mean there is a God. And at the same time, it doesn't mean there isn't.

That is the basis of power, but that does not eliminate the basic human instinct of faith.

We are, a force none of us can ever know, just through the language of religion.

That is just spirituality hijacked for politics. The unknown remains.

Yes, that is the main power of religion

We are slaves to ourselves

I agree faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. If you need evidence, you have no faith.

At the beginning the weight of hydrogen was critical. Theoretical physicists have stated that if hydrogen weighed a little bit less or more than no Universe, no recurrent Big Bangs. The Effect cannot be greater than the Cause according to Newtonian Physics. A mechanical Universe is good at producing all non mammalian life forms. But if a mammal cannot satisfy its purpose it perishes. A human will plant a tree that will reach maturity after the planter dies. We cannot live without music, art and acts of charity. I am at a loss to imagine a mechanical Cause for what makes humanity noble.

ummm, i've always understood the definition of "Atheist" is lack of belief or faith in a god  ("A"- without, "theist"- believer in Theos, (Greek for deity))

making the big presumption you are a Christian, you likely have read Hebrews 11:1, where Paul defines faith as

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

if we can agree to start here, it could make an interesting conversation

but if definitions are gonna change to suit our individual purposes, and if words are gonna lose their meanings as we go, then it's probably gonna be an exercise in sophistry vs an attempt to keep discipline

Two words: Richard Dawkins. Best selling author of "The God Delusion." He seems to positively believe there is no god. He seems to have sold a lot of books. I grew up with atheists for half my childhood. Every one was religiously insistent on the correct position that there is no god. One way that atheists, (like the religious) insist that only their idea is valid is by being condescending. Let's use your statement for example:

"I don't positively believe their is no God... just like I don't positively believe there are no purple zebras, green penguins or silver unicorns,"

I'm not a religious person, but I have to ask do you really think the question of god is equivalent to that of the question of unicorns? Because I can tell you, the whole of human history and thought has not been marked by the question of the nature and existence of unicorns.

material world?  as oppoed to what? thoughts and ideas?
do you consider yourself a Platonist?

and i thinkyou are more properly talking about rationalizations  or convictions rather than "faith" if the above is your interpretation

and please explain "Meaning" as you are using it
because it sounds like you are parsing it very finely to use it as a replacement of the word "Belief" and to then go on to imply that atheism entails a lack of meaning due to a lack of belief

i'm not much of a philosopher, but that strikes me as an equivocation - belief and meaning are not quite the same thing, even though they may be intertwined

true, the universe may not have "meaning" in the way a religious person wants, but '42' has a lot of meaning for an atheist...

ok, but you do seem to have a very "Christian" fluidity of word meanings...

what do you mean by, "Insist", for example?

i consider myself a 'strong atheist' in that i believe there is no God - way too many contradictions

but, like Bertie Russell, i would have to say that i am an agnostic in that i realize that there is no way to know for sure
yet i agree with Richard Dawkins that the '50/50' proposition is ridiculous; like saying "There is no evidence for an invisible pink dragon lviing in my garage, but i'm 50/50 on it because i can't prove there's not"

so am i being insistent by holding to the "Burden of proof"?

Hmmm... an argument in the negative...

I think the following might explain what this sort of argument does for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA

Glib... Insubstantial...

Again, glib. I already said, no one is debating about unicorns.

You asked if I am a Platonist? Am I a Platonist if I don't think a thought is eternal but a thought is still a thing?

Is a thought a thing

IamMe - fantastic topic!
i think Kierkegaard answers Bakunin in rich detail...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli

...but ultimately gives a wholly unsatisfying answer to your central point:

"In short, as long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth."

yes, religion is slavery, or to invoke classic COE doublespeak: "Freedom from the desire for freedom"

but is anarchy a viable answer? i'm going to take a very bourgeois tack and say: no, the overwhelming mass of people don't value freedom enough to handle it, and the ones that do already practice it

"The problem is choice"

i bet we can each find any number of valid studies which suggest that, given unlimited degrees of freedom, most of us will choose to do pretty much what everyone else is doing

it's a graceless WalMart Age, because, like Agent Smith says, we "Define ourselves by our own misery" and our options are easy nihilism or difficult creativity

and like Nietzsche says, we have to evolve past it

Last edited by allpoints (2010-02-13 18:30:52)

^^^ of course it is and of course it's not
now stick to the topic at hand or start another thread with that question instead of reverting to ad hominem
(protip: define "Thing" to avoid falling into semantic circles)

my point about bringing up Bishop Berkeley is that he long ago covered the same Platonic ground you are trying to tread, and he used to be one of the giants of philosophy in the English language, but has faded into relative obscurity for some reason or another....

that's kinda the problem with most arguments from apologetics, they are houses of cards riding on the backs of turtles that have been refuted long ago
but like Fox News, apologetics just doesn't care, and uses them anyway because they fit the narrative

Last edited by allpoints (2010-02-13 19:01:52)

i thought i did answer it?

Q "Is a thought a thing?"
A "of course it is and of course it's not"
the answer you want from me depends on your meaning of "Thing" - a philosophically theory-laden term...

do you mean "Thing" as in object with mass? then my answer is no
do you mean "Thing" as in process, date, happening, reification, etc? then my answer is obviously yes

what differentiates one "Thing" from another? when does one "Thing" become another "Thing" altogether?
=theory-laden, so please clarify if i haven't provided just the answer you are looking for

this is simply a request for clarification, not an attempt to stonewall or be coy

do you you intend to demonstrate that because thoughts have no mass or dimension (but time), they constitute pretty good evidence of Platonic duality or noumenalism?

still seems way off topic, but worthy of another thread...