Atheism is not Logical

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by AmericanKestrel »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:22 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:33 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 3:26 am
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 13th, 2022, 6:59 pm
You are right, i do use god, because this forum is in English, the dominant religion is Christian, and it is easier to go with the common moniker. Otherwise i would use Brhman which means Existence, all that exists. It has a different connotation from a creator god, as it creates nothing and is in everything that exists, and there is nothing that in which it does not exist. It is what i describe as Divinity, eternal, infinite, transcends time and space. And it is not just within me it is all there is.
All just fantasy creations; bluster and no meaning
It is not until they are ready to learn, that babies realize what those plastic alphabets they chew on really are. It is called evolution. We continually evolve.
Randomly arranging words as you have done, is not evolution. Its just a sad and desperate way to impose meaning on the universe.
I feel sorry for you.
I am sorry if it was too challenging.
"The Serpent did not lie."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sy Borg »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:30 am
Sy Borg wrote: June 14th, 2022, 4:22 am
Is there an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? We do not know for sure, so scepticism is more logical than outright disbelief.
There is no LOGIC here.
Ok. So logic to you is that humans (or some other similar kind of aliens) are 100% certain to be the ultimate expression of sentience in the universe, and we can have total confidence that aggregated sentience cannot possibly emerge.

Even Dawkins would disagree with you.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 14th, 2022, 6:29 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:18 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:24 am
Sy Borg wrote: June 14th, 2022, 4:22 am Is there an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? We do not know for sure, so scepticism is more logical than outright disbelief.
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:30 am There is no LOGIC here.
I will answer in the same vein, by (unjustified) assertion: there IS logic there.



It's a bit like a pantomime, don't you think? "Oh yes he did!", "Oh no he didn't."

Alternatively, we could discuss matters honestly, freely admitting (where appropriate) that we are posting feelings or opinions, not justified and justifiable fact. It's a bit radical, I admit...
Fine show the logical working.
But since it is not there there is nothing more I can do but point.
Nothing in the text is a formal proposition that is tested. It's just blind expostulations.
Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.
Thank you for making my case.
Since there is not sufficient reason to believe in a god, then atheism is the default position requiring no assertions.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:02 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:22 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:33 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 3:26 am
All just fantasy creations; bluster and no meaning
It is not until they are ready to learn, that babies realize what those plastic alphabets they chew on really are. It is called evolution. We continually evolve.
Randomly arranging words as you have done, is not evolution. Its just a sad and desperate way to impose meaning on the universe.
I feel sorry for you.
I am sorry if it was too challenging.
No need to apologise for you lack of reason, your failing is a common human trait.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sy Borg wrote: June 14th, 2022, 9:45 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:30 am
Sy Borg wrote: June 14th, 2022, 4:22 am
Is there an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? We do not know for sure, so scepticism is more logical than outright disbelief.
There is no LOGIC here.
Ok. So logic to you is that humans (or some other similar kind of aliens) are 100% certain to be the ultimate expression of sentience in the universe, and we can have total confidence that aggregated sentience cannot possibly emerge.

Even Dawkins would disagree with you.
I have resolved to no longer respond to cheap straw men. If you want to discuss something then you should not misrepresent your interlocutor's POV.
I expected better from you.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Atla wrote: June 14th, 2022, 3:08 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 14th, 2022, 2:44 pm Alta!

Thank you kindly. Let's parse each one individually if I may (I'll pick the first two):

1.In both existentialism and metaphysics, essence refers to the nature of one's own existence, particularly, but not necessarily, involving the concept of ex nihilo. The perception by the senses that only you yourself exist, but you wonder about what, where, why, how etc. about your existence, speaks to one's essence. Of course, you could think of it as the antecedence or causal relationship to one's existence or even unity of opposites philosophy if that helps. (?)

2. As Hume would argue, as well as other existentialists, we only experience our own existence. We do this through Being self-aware, the senses and subjectivity. For example, only you know how to be you. Further, your truth is different than my truth. Accordingly, you have both objective and subjective truth's that exist in the mind. For example, subjective truth's could also speak to one having a religious experience, one's musical preferences, love interests, perception of colors, and so on. You know, essences are also relative to the quality (Qualia) of Being or the mystery or phenomena of conscious existence itself. (?)
Isn't metaphysics a broader term? Taking one step back, I'd say it's fairly basic metaphysics that things are void of inherent essence. Essence is just what something is like.

Some philosophies like phenomenology and guess existentialism? often seem to make the serious mistake of reifying essences, treating them as kind of things that exist by themselves.

So how can something literally speak to one's essence, or what do you mean by that?

And why would I perceive only myself to exist. That would only be the case if I would't assume an external world behind the appearance of the external world. Which would be a pretty unnatural assumption for my senses. And even in solipsism, I wouldn't be sure if I am this entire "mind" or just a part of it. And none of this really has to do with essences.
Alta!

Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. The Existential ethos is a bit more bleak in that much like in antiquity, Ecclesiastes writes about human finitude, among other paradoxical things which exist and just is (with no explanation).

I think it is acceptable to think of essences of something beyond human comprehension. My approach to philosophy essentially mirrors that (illusion, paradox, consciousness breaking rules of logic, etc.). As you mention phenomenology, that in itself implies those concepts including that of mystery, much like the existence of consciousness itself.

Speaking to one's essence was meant figuratively, however, your question ironically enough uncovers another question about self-awareness. In a cognitive way, much like the idea of law of attraction, we can speak to ourselves consciously or subconsciously (Freud would also say 'unconsciously'). Sometimes we are aware of our inner voice, and sometimes we are not. This voice can come from our stream of consciousness projecting thoughts/ideas and images uncontrollably (like when you are driving while daydreaming). Or we can control certain thoughts and project intentionality. So in a cognitive science context, we can experience a sense of one's own essence.

The final question about exclusivity relative to knowing only yourself (that you feel you exist), is another way of saying that we have both subjective and objective truth's. Perhaps one philosophical question there would be, which truth takes primacy in Being?

Thanks for the discussion. We can get to your other concerns after we parse these a bit... . Actually, since it is a bit off topic, maybe start another thread and we can include all your enumerated questions. Call it something like 'what does it mean to have self-awareness/essence v. existence'.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Atla »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!

Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
Drawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.

It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Atla wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:32 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!

Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
Drawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.

It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
Alta!

Well, to your first point, you do have a way of knowing, you just don't realize it. Three quick analogies:

1. The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. ....But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites.[2]

2. Consider opposing ways of perceiving an object. And let's make use of abstract mathematics (the metaphysics of math) as the example. You may look at an object, and observe its structure by your senses of sight, touch, smell and so on. Aside from it's emergent properties, the material object has contained within itself an abstract formula of existence. It's essence, would be analogous to its mathematical formula that created it (i.e., a structural beam, bridge, etc.). Much like the dual-way of understanding (the laws of) gravity to avoid falling objects, perhaps the question for you might be, are there two ways of observing, sensing and experiencing the world? Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?

3. Consider the concepts in logic of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Are both those things knowable? Are both required for apperception of a thing? And, what is the opposite of logical necessity?

4. Consider our the thing called wonderment that we use to discover things (which by itself is metaphysical and has little if any Darwinian survival advantages). Then consider how a physicist discovers things. His use of synthetic propositions (the synthetic a priori) is that which is innate to our way of thinking, and it helps unlock or allows for the creative mind to achieve new awareness about existing things (abstract/metaphysical formulas that describe the universe and the things in it).

And so, if the true nature of a think-in-itself is an abstract metaphysical formula, what inferences can be made beyond the observation of that existing thing? Do all things have essences of some kind? What is your existence? Physical, metaphysical or both?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:23 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 14th, 2022, 10:53 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:24 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:39 am

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?
Pure Passive aggressive, theism. Love it!
Sure! the OP speaks to something transcendent of pure reason as to the actual cause of an a-theist belief system. (You know, kind of like the thing-in-itself that caused Kant to consider writing the CPR... .) Which part are you loving, the emotion or the logic?
:shock:
There is next to zero logic in your theist insult.
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Atla »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 11:14 am
Atla wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:32 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!

Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
Drawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.

It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
Alta!

Well, to your first point, you do have a way of knowing, you just don't realize it. Three quick analogies:

1. The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. ....But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites.[2]

2. Consider opposing ways of perceiving an object. And let's make use of abstract mathematics (the metaphysics of math) as the example. You may look at an object, and observe its structure by your senses of sight, touch, smell and so on. Aside from it's emergent properties, the material object has contained within itself an abstract formula of existence. It's essence, would be analogous to its mathematical formula that created it (i.e., a structural beam, bridge, etc.). Much like the dual-way of understanding (the laws of) gravity to avoid falling objects, perhaps the question for you might be, are there two ways of observing, sensing and experiencing the world? Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?

3. Consider the concepts in logic of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Are both those things knowable? Are both required for apperception of a thing? And, what is the opposite of logical necessity?

4. Consider our the thing called wonderment that we use to discover things (which by itself is metaphysical and has little if any Darwinian survival advantages). Then consider how a physicist discovers things. His use of synthetic propositions (the synthetic a priori) is that which is innate to our way of thinking, and it helps unlock or allows for the creative mind to achieve new awareness about existing things (abstract/metaphysical formulas that describe the universe and the things in it).

And so, if the true nature of a think-in-itself is an abstract metaphysical formula, what inferences can be made beyond the observation of that existing thing? Do all things have essences of some kind? What is your existence? Physical, metaphysical or both?
The original stance was correct, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. For example I solved all contradictions.

The idea that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements, is nonsense.

The abstract is NOT the opposite of the concrete, that's nonsense. Abstract things are descriptions about the concrete things, ways of thinking about them. Emergent properties are abstract descriptions. An abstract formula can't contain anything, because it's just an abstract descritpion. They don't have essences and don't create things.
Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
No. The only "duality" here is the dichotomoy of abstracta and concreta, in our thinking. There aren't literally two ways of experiencing the world. Essence is made up, it's just what existing things are like, essence doesn't exist by itself. And the whole thing has nothing to do with the thing-in-itself.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Atla wrote: June 15th, 2022, 11:38 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 11:14 am
Atla wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:32 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!

Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
Drawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.

It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
Alta!

Well, to your first point, you do have a way of knowing, you just don't realize it. Three quick analogies:

1. The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. ....But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites.[2]

2. Consider opposing ways of perceiving an object. And let's make use of abstract mathematics (the metaphysics of math) as the example. You may look at an object, and observe its structure by your senses of sight, touch, smell and so on. Aside from it's emergent properties, the material object has contained within itself an abstract formula of existence. It's essence, would be analogous to its mathematical formula that created it (i.e., a structural beam, bridge, etc.). Much like the dual-way of understanding (the laws of) gravity to avoid falling objects, perhaps the question for you might be, are there two ways of observing, sensing and experiencing the world? Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?

3. Consider the concepts in logic of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Are both those things knowable? Are both required for apperception of a thing? And, what is the opposite of logical necessity?

4. Consider our the thing called wonderment that we use to discover things (which by itself is metaphysical and has little if any Darwinian survival advantages). Then consider how a physicist discovers things. His use of synthetic propositions (the synthetic a priori) is that which is innate to our way of thinking, and it helps unlock or allows for the creative mind to achieve new awareness about existing things (abstract/metaphysical formulas that describe the universe and the things in it).

And so, if the true nature of a think-in-itself is an abstract metaphysical formula, what inferences can be made beyond the observation of that existing thing? Do all things have essences of some kind? What is your existence? Physical, metaphysical or both?
The original stance was correct, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. For example I solved all contradictions.

The idea that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements, is nonsense.

The abstract is NOT the opposite of the concrete, that's nonsense. Abstract things are descriptions about the concrete things, ways of thinking about them. Emergent properties are abstract descriptions. An abstract formula can't contain anything, because it's just an abstract descritpion. They don't have essences and don't create things.
Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
No. The only "duality" here is the dichotomoy of abstracta and concreta, in our thinking. There aren't literally two ways of experiencing the world. Essence is made up, it's just what existing things are like, essence doesn't exist by itself. And the whole thing has nothing to do with the thing-in-itself.
Alta!

Interesting! Well, if you are correct, we must parse, then, your supposition (s). Are you saying that one's subjective truth precedes (or enjoys primacy over) one's objective truth? Please provide clarification, if you can.

And your second point is even more intriguing (not to mention troubling):

1. Are you now saying "essence doesn't exist by itself"? What, then, coincides or is the opposite of essence?
2. Support your supposition that there is only one way to know something, if you can? One can know about gravity in two ways, no?
3. If our thinking is incapable of integrating duality, does that make us a dualist in our epistemology? Could that be analogous to emotion and logic?

Please feel free to elucidate what you are trying to argue for...

In the meantime, you may/may not benefit from the basics:


Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force. For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.

More questions for Alta:

1. During cognition, does the Will precede the intellect or the opposite? And/or is it a little of both mixed together (emotion/logic being insoluble)?
2. If, as you say an abstract formula can't contain anything, what about the qualities of consciousness? Aren't some of them abstract?
3. Abstract means not having concrete or physical existence. Is the Will to be, physical or abstract? How about other emotive things-in-themselves from conscious existence?

Finally, this may/may not have more meaning (assuming you are an a-theist, which is totally fine); isn't the opposite of a-theism, theism? If not, how does an a-theist cognize their belief system? What is it based upon? And if it's not based upon theism, what word better captures that explanation/description?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 11:32 am
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:
Mr Spock won't help you here.
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 15th, 2022, 1:20 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 11:32 am
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:
Mr Spock won't help you here.
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.
Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?

Hence:
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Atla »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 1:02 pmAlta!

Interesting! Well, if you are correct, we must parse, then, your supposition (s). Are you saying that one's subjective truth precedes (or enjoys primacy over) one's objective truth? Please provide clarification, if you can.
What do you mean by one's objective truth? What we treat as if it were objective, like in science?
1. Are you now saying "essence doesn't exist by itself"? What, then, coincides or is the opposite of essence?
What is the difference between the red quale and the essence of the red quale? There is none, they are one and the same thing said twice. Same goes for something more complicated, like a car.
Same goes for everything else, the existence vs. essence duality makes no sense.
2. Support your supposition that there is only one way to know something, if you can? One can know about gravity in two ways, no?
Knowing gravity "abstractly" and knowing gravity "concretely" are just two different forms of human thinking/perception, that may happen in different parts of the human brain/mind.
3. If our thinking is incapable of integrating duality, does that make us a dualist in our epistemology? Could that be analogous to emotion and logic?
Human thinking, especially Western male human thinking, is more like inherently dualistic. It's much harder to integrate non-duality, perhaps impossible.
Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force. For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.
Unity or identity of opposites is a realization about how human thinking works. Human thinking is always relative. What we then have to realize is that reality itself does NOT work like that. Looks like the above philosophy did the exact opposite?
1. During cognition, does the Will precede the intellect or the opposite? And/or is it a little of both mixed together (emotion/logic being insoluble)?
Emotion/logic being insoluble, are we strictly talking about male minds, with mostly independent hemispheres?
I'm not sure either what will and intellect mean exactly here. "Will" as in a manifestation of self-awareness? It's all pretty fuzzy but I'd say the self-awareness is there even without the intellect, and can take shape for example through the intellect.
Excluding those people who lack self-awareness ("will") of course, I guess those only have intellect.
2. If, as you say an abstract formula can't contain anything, what about the qualities of consciousness? Aren't some of them abstract?
There are no qualities that are literally abstract, there is only abstract thinking.
3. Abstract means not having concrete or physical existence. Is the Will to be, physical or abstract? How about other emotive things-in-themselves from conscious existence?
Abstract thoughts themselves also have physical existence, but what they are "about", "abstract objects", do not.
The "will to be" sounds more like the survival instinct, that's not abstract. The will as in self-awareness taking shape, is I'd say typically abstract above 110 IQ. (abstract entity, abstract "I") 110-100 is a grey zone, below 100 people usually seem to have more concrete "I"s, fueled by the lingering self-awareness, but it's not really taking abstract shape.

I don't know what emotive things-in-themselves are.
Finally, this may/may not have more meaning (assuming you are an a-theist, which is totally fine); isn't the opposite of a-theism, theism? If not, how does an a-theist cognize their belief system? What is it based upon? And if it's not based upon theism, what word better captures that explanation/description?
Atheists have no positive belief in the existence of God/gods, I think that's all.
Strong atheists believe that there certainly is no God, weak atheists think there is (probably) no God but a negative can't be proven.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Atheism is not Logical

Post by Sculptor1 »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 1:28 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 15th, 2022, 1:20 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 11:32 am
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:
Mr Spock won't help you here.
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.
Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?
Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.
Case closed.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021