So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

[Belindi]

Ranvier:

I'm not interested in playing your "games" on the field you perceive as a zoo, where the game is to be "patting" people for fun.

I don't know about you, but my main aim here is simply to discuss interesting philosophical ideas with people from various parts of the world. Not to compete with them, but in the hope of mutually learning something. It's also to learn something about how other people think, whether it's different from the way that I think and, if so, is there a reason why? I think that's also a good way to critically examine both the way I think and how effectively I communicate. As I said to another poster recently:



But of course, human nature being what it is, we all find it difficult not to occasionally see these discussions as some kind of competition, in which we join a team and insult the "enemy" with childish content-free put-downs, or don't address people directly but make side-comments to our "friend". I don't if I've done the latter before, but I've certainly done the former. I think the challenge is to try to control that urge as much as possible and examine both sides of an argument.

My difficulty is that my opponents do what I often do, and identify with their stances in arguments. Some of these stances if practiced would cause more suffering rather than less, or at least inhibit the pursuit of truth.

[Dark Matter]

Non sequitur due to selective reading of post (s).

This is the question... How does one debate with people that can't interpret the "meaning" of what you say, to debate the universe of "subjective reality"?

And how do you debate with someone who does not comprehend or even consider in any depth the problems that arise when contemplating what must be in order for what is to be as it is? I don't think you do. Heck, they want insist the Absolute is fixed even after it's been explicitly said that from a finite point of view it is indefinite. I mean, if that's what they want to believe, fine, but don't project that belief into what was actually said and then disparage me for calling them on it.

[Steve3007]

Belindi:

My difficulty is that my opponents do what I often do, and identify with their stances in arguments. Some of these stances if practiced would cause more suffering rather than less, or at least inhibit the pursuit of truth.

People personally identifying with the arguments they make is understandable isn't it? It's difficult to detach oneself enough to try to make the argument for a position one doesn't personally hold.

Another big problem: The format. It's a well known fact that online discussions often descend into bickering and insults. I occasionally meet with friends in a pub to discuss interesting philosophy. (A local philosophy discussion group. My kids think I'm a nerd.) There are never bad tempered arguments. The reason: We can see each other's faces.

I guess that's why "Emojis/Emoticons" were invented. I don't use them much. That may be a reason why some of my posts might be regarded by some as a cold dissection of other people.

-- Updated Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:47 am to add the following --

Steve3007:

But of course, human nature being what it is, we all find it difficult not to occasionally see these discussions as some kind of competition, in which we join a team and insult the "enemy" with childish content-free put-downs, or don't address people directly but make side-comments to our "friend"

Dark Matter to Ranvier: post #287

And how do you debate with someone who does not comprehend...

Yes, DM. That's a good example of what I meant. Thanks.

[Ranvier]

Steve3007

That's a very mature response worthy of applause. As I sated on several occasions, I consider you to be a rational and intelligent person from reading your thoughts in other posts. Yet, every attempt for us to debate on any topic in the past, seems be a rigid competition, where you don't appear to wish to learn the point of view of others but to prove them wrong. I think it's apparent from my posts that I personally "believe" that everything we say is "false" but none of us are "wrong" at the same time. I "walked" away from the debate with you on a couple of occasions out of respect but you continue to engage me with "something" to prove. I enjoy a good debate between individual minds that seek to learn from each other's different point of view on reality. However, it becomes a fruitless endeavor the moment I realize that the debate is about something else entirely and hence the failure to communicate.

Dark Matter

Indeed... and I do agree with what you said, not just to be "patting" you. I have no problem with people believing in what ever they wish but if one is to "shout" from the rooftops "there is no God", they better have something more interesting to say.

[Steve3007]

Ranvier:

Yet, every attempt for us to debate on any topic in the past, seems be a rigid competition, where you don't appear to wish to learn the point of view of others but to prove them wrong.

I think this relates to the problem with the format that I was talking about with Belindi. If we were face-to-face then we would no doubt be nodding (non-verbal) with approval at points where we agree. Because of the format, and the effort required to reply compared with simply talking, I have a tendency to reply to the points with which I disagree much than the points with which I agree. For example, your recent post on the thread about socialism: I broadly agree with it and don't think there is much there that a rational person could strongly object to.

I suspect other people also suffer from the same bias in their posts - accentuating the negative (to misquote a song).

So, no, I honestly don't think I see it as a competition (subject to the caveat that I am human, as described earlier.) But if I think you've said something incorrect I say so. On our discussion which got distracted into the physical definition of "force" and "energy", you had simply used the term "force" in a non-standard way. It's no biggy! I'm sure we all use the terminology of subjects in which we don't have specialist knowledge incorrectly. If you like, I can demonstrate my vague knowledge of the terminology of another subject and then say "my bad".

Anyway, shall we let that go?

I think it's apparent from my posts that I personally "believe" that everything we say is "false" but none of us are "wrong" at the same time.

Fair enough. They way I'd put it is that everything we say is a proposition that can be honestly examined on its own merits for its value and utility. (I guess we could even argue about this!



(Note: my selective quoting from your post does not mean I have not read the parts that I didn't quote. To avoid cluttering things up, I try to quote parts that I hope exemplify the whole. I also like your technique of bolding a specific part of a larger quote. Here is an emoji to indicate that I am now smiling: )

[Ranvier]

Steve3007

Yes, and here is my emoji

I do agree with the difficulty in not being able to "read" the non-verbal cues. I also admit to having a problem of being very goal oriented and I may be dismissive at times with people that I perceive as not heaving a positive contribution to the task at hand. However, I never hold a resentment towards anyone and there is no animosity "bone" in my body.

I always look forward to reading your thoughts...

[Steve3007]

Excellent. Now, if you live in North America as I suspect you might, get some sleep! And I will try not to get distracted again by this crazy website for enough time to do some work.

[Belindi]

Steve wrote:

The format. It's a well known fact that online discussions often descend into bickering and insults. I occasionally meet with friends in a pub to discuss interesting philosophy. (A local philosophy discussion group. My kids think I'm a nerd.) There are never bad tempered arguments. The reason: We can see each other's faces

.

There are advantages of online which face to face doesn't have. Online one does not have to listen out of courtesy Online one does not have to tolerate lack of courtesy from others. Instead one switches off or reads something more edifying, and nobody need take offence at not getting a reply or getting an unwelcome reply. Online provides a distance from the personal which is a big advantage when trying to be objective.

Maybe you are fortunate in your pub meetups that your friends are able to be explicit and are expected by others to be explicit. I am not so fortunate and most of the people I meet are habitually inexplicit and mostly talk in cliches of conventional solidarity. I know what the alternative feels like because there is still one person I know in real life who can talk explicitly but intellectuals are hard to find because most people aren't intellectuals. This is why I appreciate this meeting place online. Even most of the people with whom I disagree here have got some knowledge and some ability to express it.
I have been lucky in not getting personal insults here but if I did get personal insults here I can excuse the aggressor as not knowing me personally, or alternatively as quite correct.

[Steve3007]

Belindi:

I agree with your description of the plus-sides of online discussion (I'm learning to state when I agree with people! And to use Emojis!) I wouldn't come here if I didn't think there was a plus side. As you've probably noticed, when the mood takes me I come here a lot - probably far too much.

So I guess there's pros and cons. Swings and roundabouts. (That expression is very useful in all kinds of circumstances.)

[Count Lucanor]

Ranvier,

For the record, I'll state that I've said all that is relevant to this discussion, which is not about explaining and justifying the main tenets of atheism, for the simple reason that such a broad topic will give you more room to run around in circles with sophisms and cherry-picking the arguments you want to deal with. So, as I already explained, I have engaged in a more modest task: concentrating in your ridiculous straw man portrayal of atheism, dealing with the only identifiable and testable argument that you dared to advance. My approach has been proven wise, as even after trying to keep the narrow scope of the subject, you have made every attempt to misquote, cherry-pick sentences, avoid questions and invoke general misconceptions about atheism to amplify the scope and run away from the test that you put yourself into. The bad news: I won't let you, even after making up the lame excuse of "this debate is not going anywhere". It will go somewhere when you deal with the counterarguments.

In any case, right now you're stuck in the confusion between not having a purpose of existence beyond man himself, in some other external realm of which there is no account, and having a purpose of existence in the concrete life of man. And basically, your argument is that is not nice that there's no ultimate, absolute purpose in that other imagined domain, so you conclude that it'd better be that domain and such ultimate purpose.

Furthermore, your idea of an ultimate reason of existence beyond man, as providing a clear path of life to theists, does not stand basic scrutiny. The ramifications of theism are so diverse, and after thousands of years we are yet to see a consensus among believers about how they relate to their divine creator and worst, they can't even make up their minds about what and how that divine creator is, or even how many of them there could be.

Just look at events unfolded recently: hurricanes and earthquakes that have brought death and pain to many people. Two days ago 21 innocent children died in horrible pain because of the earthquake in Mexico. Theists credulous about the "ultimate purpose" are supposed to believe that this all is part of a preconceived plan of their divine creator. Of course, they might theorize about the reasons, but that possibility only belongs to those who will acknowledge a limited level of knowledge about such ultimate reason, in other words, that will admit being somehow confused. But of course, that's not a possibility entertained by Ranvier, for whom every theist should be picture-perfect clear, conformed and happy about the reasons behind his/her existence. And surely, according to Ranvier, the actual circumstances of their lives as they experience them, cannot provide such reasons.

[Steve3007]

Count:

At the risk of cherry picking, I'd like to pick this one point for now (and be happy to pick other cherries later):

Just look at events unfolded recently: hurricanes and earthquakes that have brought death and pain to many people. Two days ago 21 innocent children died in horrible pain because of the earthquake in Mexico. Theists credulous about the "ultimate purpose" are supposed to believe that this all is part of a preconceived plan of their divine creator. Of course, they might theorise about the reasons, but that possibility only belongs to those who will acknowledge a limited level of knowledge about such ultimate reason, in other words, that will admit being somehow confused.

This is an age old debating point between theists and non-theists. "Why does a good God allow bad things to happen?". You'll find it discussed all over this site and elsewhere. Personally, despite not having much use for the God concept, I don't see it as a much of an issue, unless we take an extraordinarily strict view of what it means to be omnipotent.

Take a more obvious case to make the point: If I fall off a cliff why doesn't God stop me from dying? Because that would mean making the world logically inconsistent. A world which is described by laws of physics which allow beings like us to evolve also inevitably allows us to fall off cliffs. And, by extension, hurricanes to happen. So to stop these kinds of bad things from happening (natural disasters and the like) God would have to be so omnipotent that He could simultaneously make the Universe logically consistent enough for humans to evolve but inconsistent enough for nothing bad to ever happen.

That, as I understand it, is the answer to that one.

Why God allows the disasters that we regard as less natural and more man-made, the evils of man, is a slight variation. That (as I understand it) involves Him not wanting us to be automata.

As I said, I'm not much into the whole God idea, but I can appreciate an argument.

[Belindi]

Steve wrote:

As I said, I'm not much into the whole God idea, but I can appreciate an argument.

I'd rather have an updated and reasonable version of the God idea.

[Count Lucanor]

Steve3007,

I'm aware this is an often debated subject and your comments reflect the issues that are mostly dealt with in such discussions. I may have my own position that either will agree or disagree with your views, and I'll be glad to engage in such debate, but let me clarify first that this would be a different discussion than the one I was having with Ranvier.

The issue relevant to my rebuttal of Ranvier's argument is not the omnipotence of a deity or its infinite benevolence. For the sake of the discussion, we can assume this anyway you want it. The real issues at stake are whether people's lives are directed by reasons and purposes defined prior to their experiences of the world, their awareness and passive conformity with those prior definitions, and the impossibility of finding other reasons and purposes outside the domain where those ultimate purposes originated. As you may well see, in order to sustain the assertion that "atheists are confused" (as opposed to theists that will have their path perfectly figured out), those three pillars must be kept standing up, otherwise the whole argument falls down. You get an earthquake and children die in excruciating pain? No problem for the theist, nothing to figure out; doing so would account as not being aware of the higher reasons and purposes of the deity. Nothing to work out or improve either, as doing so would account as weighting the circumstances of the moment, figuring out their reasons and purposes on the go, and constructing new projects. You know, finding the path while on the journey. If an atheist does it, is said to be "confused". Same thing will work for the theist.

[Steve3007]

CL:

I'm aware this is an often debated subject and your comments reflect the issues that are mostly dealt with in such discussions. I may have my own position that either will agree or disagree with your views, and I'll be glad to engage in such debate, but let me clarify first that this would be a different discussion than the one I was having with Ranvier.

Yes, the God idea seems to me to mean different things to different people. I think what is being discussed here is a pantheistic/panentheistic concept of purpose pervading the universe.

The issue relevant to my rebuttal of Ranvier's argument is not the omnipotence of a deity or its infinite benevolence. For the sake of the discussion, we can assume this anyway you want it. The real issues at stake are whether people's lives are directed by reasons and purposes defined prior to their experiences of the world, their awareness and passive conformity with those prior definitions, and the impossibility of finding other reasons and purposes outside the domain where those ultimate purposes originated.

I think the issue at hand can be summarized as: whether it is possible for this concept of purpose to come into existence where it didn't previously exist, or whether there is some kind of "conservation of purpose" law which says that it couldn't and that it must therefore always have been present.

As you may well see, in order to sustain the assertion that "atheists are confused" (as opposed to theists that will have their path perfectly figured out), those three pillars must be kept standing up, otherwise the whole argument falls down.

Three pillars? I guess. I kind of see it as one pillar. What I'd summarize as the "conservation of purpose" hypothesis.

You get an earthquake and children die in excruciating pain? No problem for the theist, nothing to figure out; doing so would account as not being aware of the higher reasons and purposes of the deity.

This is the "God moves in mysterious ways" approach. The argument I tried to repeat in the previous post wasn't quite that. It was that God obeys the rules of logic. My proposition there was that it's not mysterious why God doesn't save my life if I jump off a cliff or save children from hurricanes or whatever.

Nothing to work out or improve either, as doing so would account as weighting the circumstances of the moment, figuring out their reasons and purposes on the go, and constructing new projects. You know, finding the path while on the journey. If an atheist does it, is said to be "confused". Same thing will work for the theist.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. (I get that a lot - failing to understand what people mean.) And I find this "such and such a group is confused" hypothesis a bit, er, confusing; an unnecessary complication (I move to strike it from the record). I'd prefer to keep seeing it as "such and such a hypothesis does or does not appear to make sense" and remove the emphasis on whether some bunch of people are confused.

[Count Lucanor]

Well, sure, but that's Ranvier's hypothesis. I wouldn't propose such an approach to the subject either.