Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 05-08-2002, 06:20 AM

Koy!

Very good question. I've asked that same one but the only answer I got was relative to 'because someone else says so'. (I even attempted a logical syllogism to demonstrate an objective truth for both sides; it resulted in the brute fact that anyone can say anything, nothing new is learned.)

What follows is the fact an atheist cannot wear an objective banner to market their belief (or lack thereof). And so I'm wondering if atheism is just a subjective personal belief of sorts (or better said a personal non-belief of the existence of God), then what follows?

So, in essence, we are back to both theism and atheism being a personal (epistemic) belief system outside the domain of objective reason. And in that sense (essentialism), it follows because there is no 'impersonal object' to identify the concept of God with. The 'nature' of [the concept of] God is that it relates to Being.

A paradox. atheism appears to be another religion, once the 'selling' (of the objective argumentation) begins.

Walrus

Jayhawker Soule · 05-08-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
And so I'm wondering if atheism is just a subjective personal belief of sorts (or better said a personal non-belief of the existence of God), then what follows?

If one were to agree with you, what follows?

WJ · 05-08-2002, 06:57 AM

"If one were to agree with you, what follows?"

"....both theism and atheism [is] a personal (epistemic) belief system outside the domain of objective reason."

Wally

Jayhawker Soule · 05-08-2002, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
"If one were to agree with you, what follows?"

"....both theism and atheism [is] a personal (epistemic) belief system outside the domain of objective reason."

I understand that this is your assertion, but what are its consequences? To put it indelicately: so what?

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

WJ · 05-08-2002, 07:29 AM

Reasonable!

Well, there are really far reaching consequences with regard to human phenomena and existence. Do we have a few days, coffee, tea, beer, etc. to discuss? I think really the most central issue starts from what is considered an 'absolute' regarding 'any' epistemic belief system. For the Rationalist, his assertions become moot.

As that relates to this discussion, someone may argue (some Kantian advocate for instance) that why discuss metaphysics at all? How can human's [atheist and theists] know anything about that nonsense? Then the other side might respond by saying there are no differences between metaphysical phenomena from the existence and essences of consciousness. In otherwords, it [the phenomenon] is unknown, but its metaphysical elements exist. Sentience exists. Self awareness and self consciousness exists from nothing-out of the universe.

I think the best way to articulate that particular line of argumentation as it relates to consequences, would be Existential 'being and nothingness'. Certainly, the atheist would embrace that concept. No?

Wally

Jayhawker Soule · 05-08-2002, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Well, there are really far reaching consequences with regard to human phenomena and existence.

With all due respect, it seems that you take yourself (and my question) far too seriously. Leaving aside "human phenomena and existence" for the moment, what would be the specific consequences of my agreeing with you?

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-08-2002, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:So, in essence, we are back to both theism and atheism being a personal (epistemic) belief system outside the domain of objective reason.

Atheism is not a belief system. End of your pointless straw man.

WJ · 05-08-2002, 08:14 AM

Reasonable!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'too seriously', but give yourself credit for asking the right questions. Your question, the way I see it, is very important. Otherwise, why has the notion of atheism been invented to begin with? Ehh?

Theists and atheist [people]invest their whole lives [their Being] in the belief systems they choose to believe. The consequences that follow are relative. Life is relative. Cause and effect; integrated. How you percieve your existence determines the outcome-ethical consequences of it. It's the in-there out-there dichotomy of your perceptions about your own existence that makes a difference in your life. Part of it is the feeling people have over what is or isn't considered important in one's life.

Is that what you mean? Perhaps I/we need a definition of each other's meaning behind life's 'consequences'.

Walrus

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

WJ · 05-08-2002, 08:25 AM

Koy!

You do not exist.

Is that what you want to hear? In the context of this discussion, *you* are the straw man. Get it?

Wally

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

free12thinker · 05-08-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Koy!

You do not exist.

Is that what you want to hear? In the context of this discussion, *you* are the straw man. Get it?

Wally

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

I don't think Koy gets it. I certainly don't get it. And neither does 99% of anyone else that you may discuss these topics with.

Serenity now!

05-08-2002, 08:14 AM	#88
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Reasonable! I'm not sure what you mean by 'too seriously', but give yourself credit for asking the right questions. Your question, the way I see it, is very important. Otherwise, why has the notion of atheism been invented to begin with? Ehh? Theists and atheist [people]invest their whole lives [their Being] in the belief systems they choose to believe. The consequences that follow are relative. Life is relative. Cause and effect; integrated. How you percieve your existence determines the outcome-ethical consequences of it. It's the in-there out-there dichotomy of your perceptions about your own existence that makes a difference in your life. Part of it is the feeling people have over what is or isn't considered important in one's life. Is that what you mean? Perhaps I/we need a definition of each other's meaning behind life's 'consequences'. Walrus [ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

05-08-2002, 08:25 AM	#89
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Koy! You do not exist. Is that what you want to hear? In the context of this discussion, you are the straw man. Get it? Wally [ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-08-2002, 06:20 AM	#81
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Koy! Very good question. I've asked that same one but the only answer I got was relative to 'because someone else says so'. (I even attempted a logical syllogism to demonstrate an objective truth for both sides; it resulted in the brute fact that anyone can say anything, nothing new is learned.) What follows is the fact an atheist cannot wear an objective banner to market their belief (or lack thereof). And so I'm wondering if atheism is just a subjective personal belief of sorts (or better said a personal non-belief of the existence of God), then what follows? So, in essence, we are back to both theism and atheism being a personal (epistemic) belief system outside the domain of objective reason. And in that sense (essentialism), it follows because there is no 'impersonal object' to identify the concept of God with. The 'nature' of [the concept of] God is that it relates to Being. A paradox. atheism appears to be another religion, once the 'selling' (of the objective argumentation) begins. Walrus

05-08-2002, 06:57 AM	#83
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	"If one were to agree with you, what follows?" "....both theism and atheism [is] a personal (epistemic) belief system outside the domain of objective reason." Wally

05-08-2002, 07:29 AM	#85
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Reasonable! Well, there are really far reaching consequences with regard to human phenomena and existence. Do we have a few days, coffee, tea, beer, etc. to discuss? I think really the most central issue starts from what is considered an 'absolute' regarding 'any' epistemic belief system. For the Rationalist, his assertions become moot. As that relates to this discussion, someone may argue (some Kantian advocate for instance) that why discuss metaphysics at all? How can human's [atheist and theists] know anything about that nonsense? Then the other side might respond by saying there are no differences between metaphysical phenomena from the existence and essences of consciousness. In otherwords, it [the phenomenon] is unknown, but its metaphysical elements exist. Sentience exists. Self awareness and self consciousness exists from nothing-out of the universe. I think the best way to articulate that particular line of argumentation as it relates to consequences, would be Existential 'being and nothingness'. Certainly, the atheist would embrace that concept. No? Wally

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.