Revolutionary Islam

[belboid]

let me take this in easy stages.

jews are both the adherents of a faith and an ethnic community.

someone can be a member of the ethnic community and an atheist.

so you can be an atheist jew without holding with judaism.

yes dear, I know, that was my point. But you didnt have one.

i remember why I put you on ignore now, never anything but bullshit and backtracking.

 

[belboid]

I'm not too sure about God...

you must have iron in the soul then

 

[Pickman's model]

yes dear, I know, that was my point.

what a pity you didn't say that then.

But you didnt have one.

so why'd you bother posting then?

let's remind ourselves of the exchange:

if they're atheist then they are unlikely to hold with judaism.

but that doesn't stop someone from being an atheist jew.

didn't say it did. but don't let that get in your way.

why did you bother responding to a post saying 'how about an atheist jew' then? you now admit your reply was completely and utterly pointless.

my reply was not "completely pointless" as there are two categories of 'jew', the one religious, the other ethnic.

i remember why I put you on ignore now, never anything but bullshit and backtracking.

whether you have me on ignore or not is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

 

[belboid]

funny how you didn't post the question you were supposed to be replying to, isnt it? Silly little boy.

 

[Pickman's model]

funny how you didn't post the question you were supposed to be replying to, isnt it? Silly little boy.

stupid little twat: i quoted the exchange between you and me. and as you didn't ask the inital question...

 

[Spymaster]

Nobody "doesn't believe in God," Fool. Self-declared atheists least of all.

That depends on how you define "god".

The majority of religionists, when they speak of god, are referring to an interventionist being with the power to affect everyday life and judge us after death.

That god is very definitely rejected by atheists.

 

[DotCommunist]

That depends on how you define "god".

The majority of religionists, when they speak of god, are referring to an interventionist being with the power to affect everyday life and judge us after death.

That god is very definitely rejected by atheists.

sometimes but not always on the former, usually but not always on the latter

 

[Spymaster]

sometimes but not always on the former, usually but not always on the latter

Almost always on the former excepting some deists. I take your point on the latter.

My point is that Phil's statement that "nobody doesn't believe in god" is pointless unless god is defined, and any definition is moot.

 

[butchersapron]

Everyone believes in capitalism - right?

 

[DotCommunist]

Almost always on the former excepting some deists. I take your point on the latter.

My point is that Phil's statement that "nobody doesn't believe in god" is pointless unless god is defined, and any definition is moot.

when you talk of belief in an interventionist god you have to consider churches or tendencies that god has interceded, will intercede again, but is not doing so now. As opposed to the faiths that practise spiritual gifts and assume that jesus will get you a car park space if you pray while driving into tesco. What I've heard my old dear refer to disparagingly as 'dead faith' vs 'living faith'

 

[phildwyer]

did i say they didn't? you dozy twat.

Yes you did.

You're now reduced to transparent lying. Again. What a risible fool you truly are.

 

[phildwyer]

as are the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti. So now everyone believes in them too, by your logic.

Don't be stupid.

 

[Spymaster]

when you talk of belief in an interventionist god you have to consider churches or tendencies that god has interceded, will intercede again, but is not doing so now.

Well part of that's deism, which I excepted, but if there are others we'll lob them in too, no probs. The fact still remains that there are plenty of people who do not believe in god as they define it. If Phil wants to tell them that their definition of "god" is wrong the thread will get more interesting!

 

[phildwyer]

That depends on how you define "god".

The majority of religionists, when they speak of god, are referring to an interventionist being with the power to affect everyday life and judge us after death.

That god is very definitely rejected by atheists.

There are no atheists. Someone who really didn't believe in God (in the philosophical sense) would be unable to function.

 

[Spymaster]

There are no atheists. Someone who really didn't believe in God (in the philosophical sense) would be unable to function.

Then define that god.

 

[phildwyer]

Well part of that's deism, which I excepted, but if there are others we'll lob them in too, no probs. The fact still remains that there are plenty of people who do not believe in god as they define it. If Phil wants to tell them that their definition of "god" is wrong the thread will get more interesting!

It's not "wrong," so much as literalistic.

And hermeneutic literalism is an error than religious fundamentalists share with atheists. Both sides of the debate being equally ignorant.

 

[phildwyer]

Then define that god.

The concept of concepts.

Next question?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well part of that's deism, which I excepted, but if there are others we'll lob them in too, no probs. The fact still remains that there are plenty of people who do not believe in god as they define it. If Phil wants to tell them that their definition of "god" is wrong the thread will get more interesting!

Well exactly. That's always my point of entry here. If someone asks me if I believe in god, I have to ask them to define the thing for me first. I don't have too much of a problem with strict deism. It's functionally equivalent to atheism.

 

[Spymaster]

Next question?

Define concept of concepts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The concept of concepts.

Next question?

Oh fuck, here we go.

Plato was wrong on this point, Phil.

 

[phildwyer]

Well exactly. That's always my point of entry here. If someone asks me if I believe in god, I have to ask them to define the thing for me first.

Look, this ain't rocket science.

The monotheistic God is a mythological expression of the Platonic Absolute Idea.

Are you familiar with Plato? If so, you'll take my point. If not, I'll be happy to walk you through it.

 

[phildwyer]

Plato was wrong on this point, Phil.

See, now we're getting somewhere.

Note to Pickman's: this is the debate you need to have if you seriously want to be an atheist.

Now LBJ, please tell me why Plato was wrong.

 

[phildwyer]

Define concept of concepts.

OK.

You know what the concept of a table is? You know what the concept of a chair is?

Good. So you understand what a concept is. Plato says that these concepts are what enable human being to make sense of experience. The concept of a chair allows us to recognize a chair. And so on.

Now, take a step back (or forwards) into abstraction, and imagine the concept of a concept. No different from the concept of a chair or a table. Plato says that this concept of concepts, or "Absolute Idea," is what allows us to have concepts, thus allowing us to make sense of experience, and in this sense creating the world for us.

Like I said, it ain't rocket science.

 

[belboid]

You know what the concept of a dodo is? What it's dodohood is?

Of course the dodo is dead, as is a certain other concept, even if we accept Plato's terms.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes you did.

You're now reduced to transparent lying. Again. What a risible fool you truly are.

oh dear it's the lying shitferbrains pseudoacademic.

i never said they might not consider themselves culturally jewish. and if i did then no doubt you can quote the post.

 

[phildwyer]

You know what the concept of a dodo is? What it's dodohood is?

Of course the dodo is dead, as is a certain other concept, even if we accept Plato's terms.

If we're still having concepts, then that which allows us to have concepts (aka the concept of concepts) is obviously still alive and kicking.

Right or wrong?

Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain this sort of thing to vaguely educated people (Pickman's obviously not included here). There was a time, not long ago, when every literate person knew this stuff.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

See, now we're getting somewhere.

Note to Pickman's: this is the debate you need to have if you seriously want to be an atheist.

Now LBJ, please tell me why Plato was wrong.

You cannot infer the Platonic ideal from existence, or at least, doing so requires justification.

There is a school of thought that holds mathematics to exist as a form of Platonic ideal. Mathematics as god, if you like.

Here's Roger Penrose's take on this:

I have a lot of time for Penrose - I'm a huge fan, in fact. However, even in Penrose's schema, the apparent existence of a Platonic mathematical world only comes about through the mediation of the physical with the mental worlds. I would hold that we don't understand enough about the mental world and how it is generated to postulate any Platonic ideal. It's ok to say wrt certain questions 'I don't know'. Personally, I see no need to go beyond the statement 'existence is', or 'experience is', as that which we can know but cannot demonstrate - the Godel statement of the logical system that is the universe, if you like. And as Godel proved, any logical system must have such a statement. Its existence shows a lot about the nature of such systems, but doesn't really prove a god in any meaningful way - to do that would require stepping outside the system, and that's the one thing we cannot do. We can merely note the limitations of our perspective from within.

Godel himself disagreed - he was very religious. But I can only note that as a curious thing. Wittgenstein professed to be a Christian, despite all he did to show how divine knowledge is not possible. That is also a curious thing. If you wish to identify 'god' as 'existence' - the idea that existence is - that's fine. I don't see the point in that kind of reductionist definition, though. It's quite possible to live without it.

 

[8ball]

If we're still having concepts, then that which allows us to have concepts (aka the concept of concepts) is obviously still alive and kicking.

What about the concept that allows us to have concepts of concepts?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What about the concept that allows us to have concepts of concepts?

Turtles all the way down.

 

[belboid]

If we're still having concepts, then that which allows us to have concepts (aka the concept of concepts) is obviously still alive and kicking.

Right or wrong?

aah, the same failing as the Quinque Viae. I'm with Russell on this one.