Theism v. Non-Theism

And if I may add a point here: The statements "I do not believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" do not mean the same thing. Some atheists might subscribe to one of those statements, some might choose the other -- but neither of the statements describes ALL atheists, by any stretch.

It seems Mike is bent on believing that atheism is a religion.

Pretty much all I can say on the topic, is what I have already said. If he wants to rationalize it away, I can't stop him.

all

I'd say this discussion resembles the adage, "Opinions are like bellybuttons; we've certainly all got one."

Yep, and as Oscar Wilde said "In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."

Gillyflower:

I don't care how many times you explain that atheists are believers. You are wrong. You can keep saying it and you only continue to be wrong. Repeating it doesn't make it less wrong.

It's just that they fervently believe in the fundamental existence of this physical world, without any evidence, much less any proof. And they believe that that dogmatic belief is exempt from skepticism. When someone firmly believes and asserts something for which there is no evidence, that's called "dogma". Atheists believe in a dogma.

I'm skipping the looooong middle part because you don't make a lot of sense.

Of course that won't do, but suit yourself. A blanket statement that a large set of statements don't make sense is a vague, unsupported, referentless expression of personal opinion. Of course you certainly have a right to express unsupported personal opinion.

Why don't you start looking up words like mythic, mythical, supernatural?

I'm not into dueling definitions. Those words have various different definitions, and unless you define your terms, I won't know which definitions of them you're referring to.

But I'm not unwilling to look words up either. According to Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary:

Supernatural: Not explainable by the known laws or forces of nature.

Nature: The physical universe (That's the applicable definition here)

The subjective you, though nonphysical, is not supernatural, by those definitions. According to those definitions, there are nonphysical entities that are not supernatural.

If this physical world isn't fundamentally existent, and if something else is fundamentally existent, then there exists a "supernatural" entity, by S&S's definitions. And there is no evidence that such a "supernatural" entity doesn't exist. Or that it does? Sure, ontologies can't be proved. The subject is necessarily _speculative_, as I keep pointing out.

I'll add that there are good arguments for the suggestion that this physical world is not fundamentally existent, and that something else is. Arguments supported by standards such as elegance, parsimony, simplicity, etc. If so, then those standards for comparing ontologies favor the suggestion that there exists a "supernatural" entity. No, I'm not telling anyone what to believe, but am only describing arguments on the subject.

I like the idea of UPGs. When it's all speculative, then personal impressions are relevant, no matter what the Atheist looking for gods, by using telescopes and electromagnetic test instruments, might claim.

And the subjective you (whatever you mean by that) doesn't exist separate from the physical you.

By S&S's definitions, the conditioned subjective you isn't "supernatural", but remains nonphysical.

You're right when you say that the conditioned subjective you is the result of the brain and the physical world. But you're mistaken if you claim that that makes the conditioned subjective you "physical". Try to prove that anything that is the result of something physical is, itself, physical. Donald Duck, the square root of two, and the meaning of "abstract" are correlated with and correspond to brain-states or processes. But are those three things physical? Correlation or correspondence with brain states or processes doesn't make something physical.

In general, does correlation or correspondence establish shared properties? If you visit an art museum, and there is a one-to-one correspondence between the oil paintings and your impressions of their quality or merit, does that mean that, because the paintings are physical, then your impressions of their qualitly or merit are also something physical?

Causation likewise doesn't establish a shared property. If you say something to cause someone to be in a good mood--you cause their good mood--need that good mood share a property with you? If you're Presbyterian, is the good mood Presbyterian?

There is no reason to claim that the subjective you is physical. Evidently there exists a nonphysical entity: the subjecive you.

You can keep saying that too and it still isn't true. It also doesn't prove that all the supernatural beings that you apparently believe in exist.

How many "supernatural" (By S&S's definitions) entities have I suggested here? One?

The belief that there exist no "supernatural" (by S&S's definitions) entities depends on the belief that this phsyical world is what fundamentally exists, and that, therefore, anything existent must be explainable in terms of this physical world. That is a _belief_, and nothing more.

And I have repeated many times that no ontology can be proven.

You know, there's a funny aspect to calling God "supernatural". Without, right now, arguing the existence question one way or the other, if there is a God, who exists eternally, always was, then surely that God is more "natural" than this physical world. Especially if, as some religions say, that God created this world. That God would be the most natural entity that there is.

The supernatural being that you call God is beyond my scope too. I have no idea what god you are talking about.

Have I been talking advocacy about the existence of God?

Here, I have once briefly mentioned that the ontology that I suggest posits the Self as what fundamentally is. But I didn't mention God in that comment.

I don't believe in all the gods and myths about gods and supernatural beings. Sometimes a good myth is just a good story ripped off from another culture and retold with the names changed. The bible for example is full of myths like that which can be traced to other cultures.

But are you sure that you want to attack those beliefs, when you yourself say that you believe in gods? Might not your own gods, too, be just a good story borrowed from another culture?

You staunchly defend Atheism. You say that you believe in gods, but would someone with your Atheist worldview believe in gods? And, if you do, then you must know that most Atheists would claim that you are more irrational than they are, because you believe in something that they can't detect with scientific measuring instruments. Do you defend such a statement?

Why is it so important to you that other people agree with you that your gods exist?

It isn't.

When did I speak of more than one God? In fact, I've intentionally not brought God into this discussion, partly for the very reason that I have no wish to convince anyone about God's existence.

I've only meant to comment of Atheists' claim that they're more scientific or "intellectually honest" than the rest of us because of their skepticism, though their "skepticism" soon turns out to be belief, rather than skepticism.

Because the belief that this physical world is fundamentally existent seems to be central to Atheism, I'd like to coment on that belief:

There are infinitely many ways that a physical universe could be. It could be like this one, or some other way. Those other possible ways, other possible universes, could be called "possibility worlds". What makes our own possibility world different from the others? The fact that it's real and the others aren't? What a coincidence, that the possibility world that we live in is the only one that is real and existent.

Why should we expect that one possibility world should have status or significance above all the others?

But this one is the one that includes us, and, predictably, that's why this one is the one that seems real and existent to us. This world's apparent existence and real-ness, for us, is merely the result of our being part of this possiblity world, with our lives being possibility stories in this possibility world.

Now, from our point of view here, it's quite obvious that all the other possibility worlds don't exist. Clearly they don't exist. But, if all the possibility worlds, objectively, have equal status--a reasonable assumption unless we're shown otherwise--then what does that say about the genuine existence or real-ness of this world?

You said that if someone throws a baseball at you, and it hits your hand, it will hurt, proving that this world is real. No. All that proves is that the baseball is as real as your hand. As I said, of course this possibility world, and everything in it, can be expected to seem real, actual, and existent, as perceived by its inhabitants, who are part of it, just like such things as a baseball, or a boulder, etc.

There is no evidence, physical or otherwise, that this physical world has fundamental existence. The above argument suggests that the oppposite is so. (I don't claim that it proves it)

But the belief in this physical world's fundamental existence is central to Atheism.

Are there any self-designated Atheists at this forum? If so, they're depending on self-designated non-Atheists to speak for them?

Actually I was the one who used the baseball analogy.

The point, which you have obviously missed, is that regardless of the philosophical musings of folks like you, our bodies certainly act like there is a physical world which exists, and so does the world itself. You can plead and doubt all you want; the fact is that our experience of the world is more than reasonable to assert that there is an objective, physical world which does exist, separate from our experience of it. Rather you resort to special pleading when you assert there is no reasonable means of determining that there is in fact a physical world which exists.

I'm not even sure you even understand how science works at all. Science takes as fact that there is an objective, physical world which exists, and that we can understand that world through observation. As such, if atheists do not believe in anything they are unable to observe, let alone provide evidence to support such observations, then their worldview is by definition more scientifically based.

Michael5810 wrote:Are there any self-designated Atheists at this forum? If so, they're depending on self-designated non-Atheists to speak for them?

An entirely unwarranted assumption masquerading as a question... For all you know, there are atheists here who perhaps haven't read this thread because they've not yet noticed it or for some reason (understandable, I'd say) have decided not to get involved. If the latter, they're certainly smarter than I, that's for sure.

Gorm_Sionnach:

The point, which you have obviously missed, is that regardless of the philosophical musings of folks like you, our bodies certainly act like there is a physical world which exists, and so does the world itself.

I'm not quite sure why you think that I missed that point. I clearly said that this physical world is real and existent in its own context, and in the perception of its inhabitants.

You can plead and doubt all you want; the fact is that our experience of the world is more than reasonable to assert that there is an objective, physical world which does exist, separate from our experience of it.

Our experience within this world says nothing about whether or not this world has fundamental existence, or exists only in its own context, in the perception of its inhabitants. I haven't denied that it exists in its own context, in the perception of us, its inhabitants.

Elevating this physical world to fundamentally-existent status is an unreasonable leap of faith, not supported by any evidence.

Rather you resort to special pleading when you assert there is no reasonable means of determining that there is in fact a physical world which exists.

Ok, fine. Tell us what means you'd use to determine whether this phsyical world is what fundamentally exists. But remember, I admit that this world exists in its own context, in the perception of its inhabitants.

I'm not even sure you even understand how science works at all. Science takes as fact that there is an objective, physical world which exists

Actually, no it doesn't. Science studies and describes the internal workings of this world, but makes no assumptions about this world's ontological status. Nor does it claim to have any findings about this world's ontological status. Physical science and ontology or metaphysics are entirely separate subjects.

, and that we can understand that world through observation.

Science seeks to study, describe and explain the internal workings of this universe. Yes, through expereiment and observation.

As such, if atheists do not believe in anything they are unable to observe...

...physically observe, perhaps with scientific measuring instruments or telescopes? The belief that the phsyical world is all of reality is called Physicalism, and it's invalidity is easily shown.

But I don't care what Atheists believe in or don't believe in. It's their claim to greater objectivity that I disagree with--because they have a _belief_ that they don't acknowledge as a belief.

their worldview is by definition more scientifically based.

In my previous post, I gave an argument suggesting that there's good reason to say that this physical world is not fundamentally existent. I don't claim to have proved that.

But, even if I haven't proved that this world isn't fundamentally existent, the Atheists don't have any proof that it is. Their belief that it is, is a dogmatic article of faith.

Dot-not-in-Oz:

My question was intended as a question. Sure, maybe, as you said, there are Atheists at the website who don't choose to read the Atheist forums.

Dot-not-in-Oz:

My question was intended as a question. Sure, maybe, as you said, there are Atheists at the website who don't choose to read the Atheist forums.

Michael5810: Perhaps they have read the forum and have decided they don't want to participate because you seem to be looking for a fight.

Ontology is a philosophical field of inquiry, not a scientific one. How would one approach the study of ontology from a scientific perspective? Probably by positing a materialist understanding of ontology, but you will find that such an ontology is the basis of the scientific world view. Scientists have made up their mind on the issue, and it is one of the most convincing, evidential and reasonable methods of explaining the way in which the universe exists and works.

While we're at it, I'm fairly certain a lot of theists believe this physical world is " fundamentally existent," too ...

This is one of those reasons philosophy, once the bedrock foundation of man's exploration of his outer world, just as of his inner world, is now held in such poor repute that philosopher and idiot are synonomous not only to the uneducated majority, but to scholars of most other disciplines.

We can prove this universe exists, that it had a discrete beginning. We posit and find data that implies it will end, and that there may well be other universes, but we can prove that this one did begin, and does currently exist.

Our understanding of its nature undergoes the occassional shift. Learning that all matter was simply a form of bound energy rocked our world almost as much as determining that even "solid" matter was almost all empty space as well. As microscopic understanding revealed profound truths, the old Newtonian physics still governed the observable world and our daily lives; the mathematics of the ancient Greeks still formed the basis for our understanding of our universe, we have simply added to them.

Philosophy wastes much time on moot arguements, such as the denial of the existence of the universe. I find it harder and harder to defend philosophy to its ctitics; it seems that the slave owning greeks tradition of holding utility as a criticism of philosophy seems to have survived. Only the useless is worthy of discussion, only the pointless of debate. A tool so well suited to building understanding is being used to stir vaccume instead. How useful.

The first posting in this thread said:

atheism is out to disprove all metaphysical beliefs.

The belief in the fundamental existence and reality of this physical world is a metaphysical belief. Atheists believe in that. Atheists are believers.

Zen-Yen:

Michael5810: Perhaps they have read the forum and have decided they don't want to participate because you seem to be looking for a fight.

This is not the Atheism Fellowship Forum. This is the Atheism Debate Forum.
At a debate forum, we don't have to agree. This forum isn't just for Atheists and their supporters to pat eachother on the back. There is an Atheist Fellowship Forum for that.

At this forum, people who are not Atheists are welcome to comment on what they claim are errors of Atheists. They should so so politely, and with fair argument, without namecalling or ad-hominem insults.

I expect the same level of conduct from Atheists (or their supporters).

Atheists are the great skeptics. So are they willing to tolerate forum-participation by someone who is skeptical of Atheists' beliefs?

I don't care if someone believes as I do. I don't care if someone believes in something that I don't believe in. My comment about Atheism is merely that many Atheists often claim that they are more intellectually honest, or more scientific, because they aren't believers. ...becauses they don't have beliefs.

That simply isn't true. They are believers:

Do Atheists, or do they not, believe that this physical world exists and is real if anything exists and is real?

Do Atheists, or do they not, believe that this physical world is at least as real and existent as anything is?

They do, and that is a belief.

But, you might say, it's a _right_ belief. What they believe in is The Truth.
But every belief is The Truth, to the True Believers who believe in it.

Many Atheists often say that they don't believe in anything that can't be proven. Ok, prove that this physical world is real and existent if anything is, or that this physical world as as real and existent as anything is.

Not only has no one here showed such proof, but no one here has even showed any evidence suggesting the truth of that Atheist belief.

We've heard people say that, obviously, hands, feet, and apples are real. We've heard someone say that if someone throws a baseball at you, and it hurts, that proves that this physical world is real. As I said, that proves only that the baseball is as real as yout body.

The fact is, that your physical experiences in this world, and any scientific observations &/or experiments that you or someeone make, can only tell you something internal to this world. About what is in this world, about what is happening or has happened in this world. About the internal workings of this world. In this world, along with you, is someone who has just thrown a baseball at you. And, in this world, is a baseball that has hit your body, which, registers the impact.

None of that, nor any scientific experiment or observation, says anything about the ontological status of this physical world.

But, if anyone believes that they have proof, or even evidence, that this physical world is real and existent if anything is, or is as real and existent as anything, then I invite you to post it in this thread.

Ontology is a philosophical field of inquiry, not a scientific one.

Quite so. Ontology and science are entirely different subjects.

How would one approach the study of ontology from a scientific perspective?

...By practicing pseudoscience. By trying to apply science outside of its legitimate reange of applicability. Science's legitimate range of applicability is the study and description of the internal workings of this physical universe--the interactions of its parts.

Or, taking a different interpretation of what you mean by "scientific", ontology should, of course, be approached by proving any statements that we claim are provable, and by telling why we believe anything that we claim is true for sure.

So I repeat, would Atheists or their supporters like to prove that this physical world is real and existent if anything is, or that it is as real and existent as anything is?

Probably by positing a materialist understanding of ontology

The ontologies of Physicalism and Materialism have already been posited.

They haven't held up very well under scrutiny. In any case, do Atheists or their supporters believe, as well, in Physicalism &/or Materialism? Is that a further belief that they believe in?

, but you will find that such an ontology is the basis of the scientific world view.

The scientific worldview is a way of describing and studying the internal workings of this physical world and the interactions of its parts and contents. The scientific worldview is not the ontology of Materialism or Physicalism. In no way is the ontology of Materialism or Physicalism the basis of science or its worldview.

There have been important physicists with different ontological views. What they've had in common was competence at science. Their different ontological views were entirely irrelevant to that scientific competence that led to their making great contributions to physics.

As I said before, the legitmate area of applicability of physical science is the study and description of the internal workings of this physical world. That's all. Science says nothing about ontologies such as Physicalism or Materialism. Science says nothing about the ontological status of this physical world.

Scientists have made up their mind on the issue

...Unanimously, in favor of the ontology of Materialism or Physicalism?

Wrong. Newton, Schroedinger and Einstein weren't Materialists or Physicalists.

, and it is one of the most convincing, evidential and reasonable methods of explaining the way in which the universe exists and works.

Sceince is a great way of explaining the internal workings of this universe. As for "the way in which the universe exists", I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean this physical world's ontological status, then no, science doesn't explain or address that matter.

Michael: Perhaps you'd get more takers from among atheists if your posts were shorter and made more sense. Most THEISTS also believe the physical world actually exists, so why do you think you've somehow scored a point against atheists?

I've never heard an atheist claim to have no beliefs at all ... but I've heard them claim not to believe in things for which they've encountered no evidence. There is a difference between those two statements. You are making things up in an attempt to score points, in my opinion.

Let's see. So far the score is atheists don't believe in supernatural things that they have no proof of while Michael believes in all supernatural beings and myths.

Those that don't believe as he does are skeptics. As for the physical world, I think Michael thinks believing it is a bad thing.

Does that sum it up pretty well? I think that is the gist of it, isn't it?

gillyflower: I'm still wondering why, if no one can really ever prove ANYTHING to Michael's satisfaction, then why does he think HE can prove anything? If you apply his "anything anyone thinks at all boils down to an unprovable ontological thingamajig so it's just a 'belief' ..." then there is really no point in any kind of debate at all. Or maybe I'm missing something.

I think we'd be better off just popping open a bottle of something good.

Yes! With snackies. Thank you, I left that out. Since nothing can be proved we can all just have any old opinions about anything at all and everyone is right about everything. Correct?

Tell the truth - is there anyone here who has managed to struggle through to the end one of the looooooong posts?

Yes, I have read them, to the end. It wasn't easy.

You are a better person than I am. I hit about the first 2 things that made no sense to me and gave it up.

Michael, I agree with you now. Nothing can be proved so you don't exist. This thread is just a bad dream.

gillyflower: I'm not a better person than you are, because neither of us is real.

Michael: Forgive me, please, but I forgot to respond to your answer to my comment that you seemed to be "looking for a fight."

You are correct, this is a debate forum, and pointed questions are par for the course. But, in my opinion, you do not seem to be looking for a "debate" -- which would involve give-and-take, comment and response, etc.

You seem more interested in a "fight" --- no real rules, bludgeoning others with gigantic posts in which whatever points are made get lost in an ocean of definitions you insist on making up, i.e., "atheism is a religion" and "selective skepticism" and "physicalism and materialism" (Are they really two different things, even?)

Instead of answering points, for instance, when someone attempts to explain why atheism is not a religion, you just repeat your own points again, at length. And then you use innuendo to accuse atheists of cowardice, of hiding behind those few of us who are willing to try to discuss this with you.

If you really want to debate, try making one point at a time, and responding to replies to that point. A conversation, if you will, instead of a lecture series.

Michael5810 wrote:My comment about Atheism is merely that many Atheists often claim that they are more intellectually honest, or more scientific, because they aren't believers. ...becauses they don't have beliefs....etc.

The problem with this statement as a proposition is that you're enlarging the context of the words "believers" and "beliefs" to include more than is meant when an atheist is discussing why s/he is not a believer.

In that context, "believer" specifically means "believer in deity/ies." That's all.

Expanding the meaning of the word as you're doing here produces a red herring which simply makes no sense in the context of atheists being non-believers IN DEITIES whereas most people termed believers clearly DO believe in a deity or deities.

When people cannot agree upon the legitimacy of a proposition as we clearly do not, then there is no basis for debate at the outset. We don't have a debate; we have your continued insistence that you've proposed an arguable proposition, and the rest of us are merely dodging the issue. Doesn't wash.

Comment on John T. Mainer's posting:

This is one of those reasons philosophy, once the bedrock foundation of man's exploration of his outer world, just as of his inner world, is now held in such poor repute that philosopher and idiot are synonomous not only to the uneducated majority, but to scholars of most other disciplines.

[Administrator, is someone who engages in namecalling allowed to continue posting? Is someone like that qualified to be a moderator?]

John, you yourself have ontological beliefs--those of your religion, and the beliefs that you express about the universe.

Ontological beliefs are philosophical beliefs. Does that make you a philosopher, when you assert your philosophical beliefs here?

If not, then the difference between you and a philosopher is that the philosopher gives some kind of justification for any factual claims that he makes on philosophical matters. And you? You just believe and assert.

We can prove this universe exists, that it had a discrete beginning.

1. Saying that you can prove something, and sharing your proof with us, are two entirely different things.

2. You aren't quite being clear with us about what kind of existence you think that the universe has. Fundamental, or merely contextual? No one denies that the universe exists contextually--in its own context. In the perception of its inhabitants.

I've defined fundamental existence in this way: To say that something fundamentally exists is to say that it exists if anything exists, or that it has at least as high a degree or status of existence as anything has.

If you can prove that the universe exists fundamentally, then I invite you to share your proof with us.

Philosophy wastes much time on moot arguements, such as the denial of the existence of the universe.

You yourself repeatedly express opinion regarding the existence of the universe. ...or is it just that anyone expressing an opinion different from yours is wasting time?

Zen Yen:

Michael: Perhaps you'd get more takers from among atheists if your posts were shorter and made more sense.

That's what I call "vague, unsupported, referentless expression of personal opinion" ( abbreviated "VUREPO")

To establish the veracity of your characterization of what I say, you would need to quote some specific statement(s) of mine, tell in what way youl think they don't make sense, and tell why you think so.

Most THEISTS also believe the physical world actually exists, so why do you think you've somehow scored a point against atheists?

My point (which should have been clear) was that Atheists, contrary to their claim, _do_ believe in something that they can't prove.

At no time did I say that no Theist believes in anything.

By the way, I never said that this physical universe doesn't exist contextually. I merely said that it doesn't exist fundamentally, as Atheists beleive it to.

I've never heard an atheist claim to have no beliefs at all ... but I've heard them claim not to believe in things for which they've encountered no evidence. There is a difference between those two statements. You are making things up in an attempt to score points, in my opinion.

Actually, it is you who, intentionally or not, are making up a straw-man. At least in my recent posts, I've said that my point is that Atheists, contrary to their claim, believe in something that they can't prove (or even show evidence for).

But if, earlier, I said that Atheists claim to not believe anything at all, then I retract that statement. It was not what I meant to say. They merely claim to not believe what they can't prove or show evidence for. That claim of theirs is false.

Gillyflower said:

Let's see. So far the score is atheists don't believe in supernatural things that they have no proof of while Michael believes in all supernatural beings and myths.

Atheists believe in something that they have no proof of. They believe in the fundamental existence of this physical universe.

I've said many times that ontologies can't be proved.

Those that don't believe as he does are skeptics.

No, not really. I wouldn't call a selective skeptic a "skeptic". In any case, it's got nothing to do with believing as I do. I haven't discussed my own beliefs, expcept maybe with a few brief mentions. It isn't what Atheists don't believe that I comment on--It's that they have a belief that they can't prove or show evidence for.

As for the physical world, I think Michael thinks believing it is a bad thing.

I couldn't care less what anyone believes in. The physical world exists contextuallly. I haven't said that any belief is "bad". I have merely commented that many or most Atheists claim that they're more scientiic or intellectually honest because they don't believe in anything that they can't prove or show evidence for. But they do believe in something that they can't prove or show evidence for.

Does that sum it up pretty well? I think that is the gist of it, isn't it?

No, not really.

Zen Yen says:

gillyflower: I'm still wondering why, if no one can really ever prove ANYTHING to Michael's satisfaction, then why does he think HE can prove anything?

What I said about that was that ontologies can't be proved. You need to understand that that also implies that I, too, can't prove an ontology.

To claim that the physical world fundamentally exists isn't to claim a complete ontology, because it says nothing about whether or not anything else exists--a matter that Atheists don't claim to know.

But, if you're going to say that you don't believe in anything that you can't prove or show evidence for, then you need to prove or show evidence for what you believe in.

I invite you, or anyone else, to prove or show evidence that the universe fundamentally exists.

If you apply his "anything anyone thinks at all boils down to an unprovable ontological thingamajig so it's just a 'belief' ..." then there is really no point in any kind of debate at all. Or maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing something. Even though no ontology can be proved, it's still possible to show that some ontological statements are ridiculous, and without any support.

Also, someone shouldn't say that they don't believe in anything that they can't prove or show evidence for, unless they can prove or show evidence for what they believe in. Which part of that don't you understand?

I think we'd be better off just popping open a bottle of something good.

...But don't post when you do.

Gillyflower says:

Yes! With snackies. Thank you, I left that out. Since nothing can be proved we can all just have any old opinions about anything at all and everyone is right about everything. Correct?

..But just don't say that you don't believe in anything that you can't prove or show evidence for, unless you can prove or show evidence for what you believe.

Though no ontology can be proved, some ontological statements can be shown to be ridiculous and without justification. And, there are widely-acceptged standards by which to compare and evaluate ontologies.

But yes, because ontologies can't be proven, and because words don't apply outside of this life and this world, then one's impressions are more relevant than some might think. That also refers to the "UPGs" that are highly respected at this website.

Gillyflower says:

Michael, I agree with you now. Nothing can be proved so you don't exist.

I'll pretend that that is a serious statement, and will answer it:

I didn't say that nothing can be proved. I said that no ontology can be proved. Of course, Atheists and their supporters also seem unable to prove the fundamental existence of this physical world.

As for whether you exist, that depends on what kind of existence you're referring to, and which "you" you're referring to. I've already spoken of two kinds of existence.


Zen Yen:

You are correct, this is a debate forum, and pointed questions are par for the course. But, in my opinion, you do not seem to be looking for a "debate" -- which would involve give-and-take, comment and response, etc.

What are you talking about? I reply to everyone. For instance, I'm replying to your posting now. So what makes you think that I'm opposed to a discussion involving give-and-take, coment, and respones, etc.?

You seem more interested in a "fight" --- no real rules

On the contrary, I've expressed rules, such as no namecalling or ad-hominem criticism. But you aren't doing very well with that last one, are you. Some people would rather complain about the individual than stay on the subject.

, bludgeoning others with gigantic posts

My posts are long, in part, because I'm answering lots of posts. The volume that I post tends to parallel the volume that I'm replying to. Also, some things don't lend themselves to soundbite. It's a lot easier and briefer to assert an unsupported belief or claim, than to justify what one is saying.

n which whatever points are made get lost in an ocean of definitions

Translation: I say what I mean by my terms.

you insist on making up, i.e., "atheism is a religion"

I never presented that as a definition. I said that Atheism has characteristics of a dogmatic religion, and that, therefore, it's reasonable to say that it is a religion.

and "selective skepticism"

Are you saying that you think that "selective skepticism" is a definition? :-)

Or are you saying that I defined it. I didn't define it, but, if necessary, I'll tell you what it means. A selectively skeptical person is skeptical about some things (usually other people's beliefs), but not others (usually his own beliefs, which he asserts without proof or evidence).

...and "physicalism and materialism" (Are they really two different things, even?)

Yes, they are. Materialists believe that matter is all of reality, all that exists. Physicalists believe that the physical world is all of reality, all that exists. Similar, but not identical. Earlier, people spoke more of Materialism. More recently, Physicalism has replaced it, as the normative belief (we're told) among modern Western academic philosophers.

Someone said that many have an unfavorable opinion of philosophers. Maybe that alleged popular sentiment refers to Western academic philosophers. If so, you won't get any argument from me. But that's off this thread's topic.

Instead of answering points, for instance, when someone attempts to explain why atheism is not a religion, you just repeat your own points again, at length.

In one posting, I listed some characteistics of Atheism that are those of a religion, and said that, therefore, it's reasonable to call it a religion. But my emphasis has not been that Atheism is a religion. My point has been that, contrary to what they claim, Atheists believe in something that they can't prove or show evidence for.

And then you use innuendo to accuse atheists of cowardice, of hiding behind those few of us who are willing to try to discuss this with you.

Well, maybe they're just very shy.

Atheists, along with some door-to-door "Christian" denominations, are among the more aggressively assertive believers. But maybe it's just that, when invited to defend their assertions, they become more reticent. Fine. I'm not criticising them for that.

Or, of course, maybe there are no Atheists at this website.

If you really want to debate, try making one point at a time

You mean one point per posting? As you did in this posting to which I'm now replying? :-)

A conversation instead of lecture series

I reply to what is said. That's a conversation. The volume of that I post is comparable to that of what I reply to.

Michael: Sigh. I tried.

OK, let's try this. I'll reply to one of your points, and I'd appreciate it if you would answer in a post specific to this comment, without conflating it with a bunch of other stuff and a bunch of other answers to other questions and so making it difficult to dig out your reply to me. Can you do that?

Here's my thought: You make a lot of comments about reality versus "contextual reality," and how no one can really prove anything really exists -- and you also say that atheists believe in physical reality and therefore have a belief that is as faith-based as any other belief.

I'd say that belief in physical, actual reality isn't "faith-based." It is evidence-based. Each of us has spent every moment of our lives collecting data that makes a convincing case that we'd better act and plan according to the notion that physical reality is, in fact, real. Bad things happen when we act as though physical reality is not real. And it's not just atheists, obviously, but theists and dogs and cats and ... you get the idea. So then, how is your "contextual reality" anything more than a word-game construct that has no real bearing on anything?

And by the way, Dot's point about how you are defining "belief" in an out-of-context way seems spot-on to me.

Michael5810 wrote:Comment on John T. Mainer's posting:

This is one of those reasons philosophy, once the bedrock foundation of man's exploration of his outer world, just as of his inner world, is now held in such poor repute that philosopher and idiot are synonomous not only to the uneducated majority, but to scholars of most other disciplines.

[Administrator, is someone who engages in namecalling allowed to continue posting? Is someone like that qualified to be a moderator?]

Namecalling??? You must be joking.

This is another preposterous enlargement of the meaning of a word beyond its intended context. John is clearly referring generally to the current status of philosophers and philosophy.

Honestly, Michael, this sort of ridiculous pseudo-outrage is hardly a reasonable way to go about engaging our interest and involvement.