Jac3510 wrote:I won't speak for K, Lunalle, as he is far more than capable of defending himself. I will only say two things until he gets around to responding to you.
Great, I look forward to further speaking with K.
Jac3510 wrote:1. You do yourself no favors accusing a person you don't know on a board you have no experience with of being uneducated. If you actually bothered to spend some time reading and getting to know some of the back and forths that have gone on instead of posting a knee-jerk reaction, you would have found that K is a very competent philosopher who has a deep understanding of atheists and a long history of discussing these matters with them. His statements come at the end of many years of this discussion--years that quite a few of us on this board have walked with him--and are conclusions, or insights if you will, on the real nature of atheism. That you agree with that conclusion is neither here nor there. In fact, your disagreement is clearly assumed throughout K's post. In sum, your post just highlights exactly the attitude that K has so correctly explained.
Unfortunately, this is a major problem, that atheists face on a regular basis:
"...are conclusions, or insights if you will, on the real nature of atheism." You (or K, or anyone else) have absolutely no authority to change the definition of an established term, based on your limited experiences. If you are unwilling to use terms correctly, then it is impossible to have any sort of discussion. My main point was, and still is, that I take offense at the attacks that have been made, and are continuing to be made, on a group of people, based on an incorrect, self-imposed, definition of a label that was forced on them.
...
Jac3510 wrote:First, you say you don't know where the universe comes from. That's either the same as just saying, "I don't know: it's just here!" which is just what K says. Or, it's just saying, "I don't know (full stop)," in which you show that either a) you haven't considered the first thing that theistic philosophers have been saying about what must be the case about the First Cause or else b) you are just defending ignorance. But both (a) and (b) are incredibly boring for reasons that ought to be obvious even to someone like you who hasn't taken the first moment to consider any of this. What you need here isn't a debate. What you need is a class.
More insulting illogical dribble... I have spent years learning about, discussing, debating, and considering this topic. However, I have yet to find an explanation supported by evidence. Option a, is false. Option b, is also false. If you have an argument you would like to make about the origins of the universe, go ahead and make it! I will consider your argument. I greatly desire to learn the truth regarding this subject.
Jac3510 wrote:Second, you ask for the meaning of "true" and suggest that you accept some definition (that you don't bother offering) that allows you to say that some of your experiences are "untrue." And yet you fail to note that even if it is true that you some of your experiences are untrue, then K's point still stands exactly as stated. How do you know it is true that some of your experiences are "untrue" (whatever that would mean)--and whatever you offer, it boils down to, "It's obvious."
Again, your conclusion is faulty, and I do not appreciate you attempting to answer questions on my behalf. First off, this question is not about god(s), so it really has nothing to do with (a)theism. But, to humour you, I would expect anyone who considers themselves philosophical would be familiar with the "fishbowl" argument. Even if you are not, it is easy to prove that we do not know our experiences are "true". Yes, humans are ignorant, I do not argue this. I'm sorry K doesn't like that fact. But again, it has NOTHING to do with atheism, in this context.
Jac3510 wrote:Third, he asks a very straightforward question, and his "huh?" is identical to your own response. Once again, K is right. On a personal note, I am a hospital chaplain, which means I spend a lot of time with people of various faiths (and no faith) at times of severe crisis in their lives. One of the best pieces of advice I got in my training was, "Always Be Curious." Check all assumptions at the door. The very fact that you didn't understand this question should have given you great pause before hit "submit" in your reply, for your entire reply assumes that you know something about atheism that K does not. What you will find is that it is this question above all others that gets to the real heart of the matter (at least for me), and the fact that you fail to grasp K's question--which is exactly what he predicted would be the case--strongly suggests that it is you, not him, who fails to understand the matters under discussion. So, again, I encourage you to be curious. Rather than assuming things about people you don't know, adopt the position of learner. Ask questions. Be inquisitive. "Why do you say that?" is a much better than, "If you say that, the you obviously don't understand X." But I digress . . .
I did, and do, fail to understand this question. It would be wrong of me to ask "Why do you say that?" in reply to a question. Please note, that I did ask for clarification, with an open mind. The question is vague and non-nonsensical to me. Is K asking how the physical laws are connected? I.e. How does gravity interact with acceleration? Is he asking for evidence of physical laws? Is he asking why the physical laws are, what they are? Please elaborate, or at least rephrase the question more clearly. I believe the ultimate matter under discussion here is that K is uncomfortable with the fact that when one does not believe in god(s), it opens a great range of questions, all of which do not have proven answers. That and people he has talked to in the past have upset and bored him. Like so many religious people, K is having a hard time saying "I don't know." It's okay, K, just keep looking for the truth, and accept nothing less!
Jac3510 wrote:Finally, you just repeat K's own words. He says the atheist response is "dead people don't come back to life." Your words are, " they do not [come back to life]." Hey, look at that! He's right again. The only thing you add is a request for evidence. And here, you either already are aware of the (very strong) evidence he has in mind, in which case, you're doing the very thing and adopting the very circular argument K is accusing atheism of, or you don't know it, in which case (again), what you need is not a debate but a class.
So, let me try to understand this one. K is making a claim that people come back to life, but he is not offering any evidence to prove such a thing, and he is upset someone would disagree with him, asking for the evidence to support his claim? It sounds to me like K is just being a bully. A good discussion is not a matter of guessing games. I do not make you guess at what I argue, and I expect you (and K) to do the same. If you propose an argument with no evidence, then it is just your opinion. Which you (and K) are free to have.
Jac3510 wrote:So for all your huffing and puffing about K being ignorant of the true nature of atheism, I find it extremely telling that he anticipated all your responses, stated them openly, and then you had the gall to offer those same responses back to him as "better answers."
K has demonstrated that he does not know, or does not correctly used the term. He has criticized and attacked a group of people who do not share his beliefs. He has guessed some of my answers right, and some of them wrong. It is a very simple matter to bring some pre-selected questions to the table, and guess, with some accuracy, how someone else will answer them. I could do it back to K, but I don't see the point.
Jac3510 wrote:I will say this: I appreciate your post very much for one reason in particular--as a one who teaches philosophy to undergraduate students, I think your post will make a great illustration for K's original argument. I make it a point to share the passage I quoted in my original response in this thread with that class--really, you illustrate the attitude Gilson was critiquing far better than you even realize! My students will, I think, appreciate reading that. Anyway, I'll leave off this now. You can respond however you like, of course. I'm far less interested in defending the OP as I was in pointing out the irony in your response--your two hour attempt to show where he was wrong served as an excellent illustration for why he was right. Well done, my friend. Well done!
Feel free to show your classes the posts. However, I ask that you do not take them out of concept, and supply a reference to your students, where they made read the full exchange. Unfortunately, you missed the whole point of my post. Let me try to lay it out as simply as I can for you. You, and K, have redefined an established term in order to attack a group of people who do not agree with your beliefs. This shows that you practice the worst sort of prejudism. We could have a discussion about the morality of prejudism, but I expect we both agree that it is immoral. Yes, I am being an ******* about semantics, but I am extremely against prejudism, and again, it is impossible to have any sort of relevant discussion, if one side redefines terms at will.
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but I have participated in many discussions on the topic of god(s) and religion, and in my experience, this thread is still in the pre-discussion phase, where we are trying to clarify terms. Your charge that atheists are boring people who do not attempt to find the reality of things, is as absurd as saying adog owners are boring people who do not attempt to find the reality of things. If anything, the reverse is true.
Atheists do not attribute things to god(s)! and most of us continue to search for truth; where as (in my limited experience, of course) most, if not all, religious people are happy with such an answer, and stop looking.
I have never seen a proper "challenge to atheists", and this is no exception.
If you (or K, or anyone) would like to submit a proper challenge to atheists, please give us some evidence that god(s) exist.
Jac3510, you say you teach philosophy, yet is the study of philosophy not heretical to your god(s)? Furthermore, how is it possible for you to study without bias, given your belief in god(s)?
*****
B. W. wrote:Lunelle, your words here pose a logical contradiction. First you say Atheism is not a belief and then say the atheist don't believe in god(s) - well that is a belief system isn't it?
Next, you cited Atheism does not attempt to set up a world view of reality, yet, please explain the insistence atheist have of removing Crosses, Nativity scenes, saying the US pledge of allegiance, forcing eradication of all mention of God from the public square... How is that not attempting to set up a world view of reality?
FYI: law of logical contradiction states: two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.
B. W. no, a lack of belief is not a belief system, it is a LACK of belief, again, as cold is a LACK of heat. I'm sorry if you don't understand that we have words to describe a lack of something. -1 = -1, not 1.
Atheists do not have an insistence of removing crosses, etc. Anti-religious individuals and groups do. Unfortunately, they are commonly referred to as "new atheists", which tends to make things even more confusing. It just happens that most of them do not believe in god(s), there are also plenty of people who do believe in god(s) who do not want christian influences in our schools and government. If someone commits an anti-religious act "in the name of atheism", they are wrong... similarly to how many people have used the "name of god" to convince people to follow them, but do not truly follow "god's commands".
****
Thanks for the support Thadeyus! It is an open thread, feel free to jump in whenever you want. As I said, I'm still trying to get the terms straight. I will update the thread I started later with some debate topics.
