@ LemonJello

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Name names. Not including someone without self-consciousness, name one person who would consider themselves an atheist while at the same time not in possession of a god-related concept.

That would be rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I didn't claim that there are persons who consider themselves atheist while at the same time holding ...[text shortened]... tial considerations that actually bear on the truth/falsity of theism.[/b]

You've given me much to ponder on. I will do just that and respond tomorrow. Thanks for your patience in this and in all of that.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I'm a bit puzzled by your position FreakyKBH. Although you think it is true that god god freely offers us a gift which we can accept or reject, presumably you also realise that LemonJello doesn't think that this is the case?

I'll get back with you after I digest LJ's mini-feast.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Name names. Not including someone without self-consciousness, name one person who would consider themselves an atheist while at the same time not in possession of a god-related concept.

That would be rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I didn't claim that there are persons who consider themselves atheist while at the same time holding no ...[text shortened]... tial considerations that actually bear on the truth/falsity of theism.[/b]

Now you should be able to see that my claim has nothing to do with anyone's considering himself to be anything.
I would consider such a person wholly relevant, as their existence in such a state is the issue. A hypothetical seems rather redundant if it contains no practical application.

If you had some person who held no god related concepts at all, then surely that person represents an instance of one who lacks theistic belief.
Again, I can think of no one like this, whatsoever. Imagining them is quite different than their actual existence. Without their existence, we have created an arbitrary standard with no moorings, using the same to measure what we know to be true, i.e., man has an idea called god.

It is refreshing to say that I share your attitude here.
Let's just hope we're not simply two mouth-breathers waiting for the same fly.

So this brings me round to my suggestion: if you want to actually influence me on this subject, you should present evidential reasons for the claim that the 'gift' has a referent in the first place.
Here's the problem: I can't.
For one, you are smarter than me.
Two, even though I believe there is more than sufficient evidential support for belief, forums such as these (read: moving graffiti) do not lend themselves to serious consideration. Their tabloid nature allows any post to be missed as much as ignored.
Three, despite claiming sufficient evidence, I consider faith elusive, like a deer in the woods: you know you saw movement--- certainly want it to be a deer--- but upon closer inspection, everything is impossibly still. It's preposterous to totally trust your own senses.
I'm sure there's a four and even possibly a five, but that's all I have for now.

Affective or conative attitudes I may have toward some property attached to a concept are separable from the issue of what the evidence recommends concerning whether or not the concept is instantiated.
Yes. I concede that and wholeheartedly agree. My intent was to have folks set aside the latter (albeit even temporary) in the hope of ferreting out the former.


Again, I thank you for your good humor in considering these various awkward posts.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Now you should be able to see that my claim has nothing to do with anyone's considering himself to be anything.
I would consider such a person wholly relevant, as their existence in such a state is the issue. A hypothetical seems rather redundant if it contains no practical application.

If you had some person who held no god related concepts ...[text shortened]...

Again, I thank you for your good humor in considering these various awkward posts.

Edit:
“Here's the problem: I can't.
For one, you are smarter than me.
Two, even though I believe there is more than sufficient evidential support for belief, forums such as these (read: moving graffiti) do not lend themselves to serious consideration. Their tabloid nature allows any post to be missed as much as ignored.
Three, despite claiming sufficient evidence, I consider faith elusive, like a deer in the woods: you know you saw movement--- certainly want it to be a deer--- but upon closer inspection, everything is impossibly still. It's preposterous to totally trust your own senses.
I'm sure there's a four and even possibly a five, but that's all I have for now.”



For one, you cannot because regarding this matter, at this level of awareness, you are a product of an ill-considered product of yours. You are as smart as it gets, however even the smartest are sometimes stranded; it would be probably easier if one could balance perfectly on his IQ/EQ instead of promoting products based on approaches that derive out of dualism.

Two, there is nothing wrong with the forums like this one. When one cannot state clearly an idea of his on a solid basis it means his philosophy does not work, and in that case one either works harder in order to clarify his idea or he resigns because he just cannot go further -and of course he cannot go further due to the fact that he is unable to clarify pure conduct, and not because “forums such as these do not lend themselves to serious considerations”. A scholar has to be at first a strong philosopher, and philosophy without reasoning is merely theology and not philosophy at all.

Three, faith is empty but not elusive although you are unable to monitor your God by means of scientific facts and evidence. Faith can well become equivalent to a product of solid understanding, and as such it is quite clear and visible at specific levels of awareness. Faith is invisible, however invisible is the wind and the wind is existent although it is empty. I cannot see/ hear/ smell/ taste/ touch faith. Faith is not an object, however life and death are not objects and still they are existent -and I am sure you know that both are Sacrifice but that's another story. It is my knowledge that faith is a modification of the mind that becomes attitude that in turn transforms the person further, and attitude is cultivated solely by means of awareness through one’s six senses -and therefore it is a product of the evaluation of the mind. Then dew time faith becomes to you a given once your meditation, your philosophy and your scientific back up assure you that you are fully aware of the nature of the specific phenomenon that is related to your faith, and at that level of awareness faith is not elusive at all although it exists solely in your own mind as a product of your Desire.
etc etc

May All Beings Be Happy
😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Now you should be able to see that my claim has nothing to do with anyone's considering himself to be anything.
I would consider such a person wholly relevant, as their existence in such a state is the issue. A hypothetical seems rather redundant if it contains no practical application.

If you had some person who held no god related concepts

Again, I thank you for your good humor in considering these various awkward posts.

Again, I can think of no one like this, whatsoever. Imagining them is quite different than their actual existence. Without their existence, we have created an arbitrary standard with no moorings, using the same to measure what we know to be true, i.e., man has an idea called god.

I can think of many like this. I mean, weren't you yourself once an instance of what I described as an implicit atheist? Was there not some point in your development when you held concepts but no god related concepts? Was there not some point in your development when you held beliefs but no theistic beliefs? At any rate, I just cannot understand the urgency to return to this again: again, the only reason I brought it up is because I thought it would prove useful to clarify your argument (in the other thread) explicitly to the subject of active/strong/explicit atheism.

I guess I will spell it out one more time for good measure. You stated in the other thread the following: "[The existence of atheism] requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist." And you presented this in context as being the "very nature" of atheism. Again, my problem with this claim of yours as it was presented is that I think it is blatantly false, since I think that atheism is in simplest form just an absence of theism; and since I think an absence of theism obviously does not "require a thought about God, in addition to a belief that He doesn't exist". I think there are persons who are atheists who lack theistic belief but who also do not have a positive belief that God does not exist. I think there are persons who are atheists but who do not hold any thought about God. These would include some versions of weak or implicit atheists, for example. Etc. However, I recognize that your claim could hold, supposing that we restricted our talk of atheism to explict/active/strong versions of atheism. That is precisely why I brought this all up in the first place.

When you say that you find it basically crazy talk to think of a person who has no god related concepts; when you say that we all know it to be true that "man has an idea called God"; perhaps you just mean that a study of at least a good deal of human history will reveal theistic beliefs and practices that in type are near-universal and cross-cultural. To me, that seems about right. For instance, anthropological evidence would show cross-cultural theistic beliefs and practices in the forms of (to name a few) symbols and words for the gods; erection of sites of worship unto the gods; works of arts and texts depicting the gods; practices that suggest widely held belief in immortality including burial rituals and practices that suggest belief in necromancy; practices that attest to duality and belief in the soul; etc; etc. Yes, I am sure you could make a case that theistic and spiritual and supernatural beliefs have featured prevalently and cross-culturally as you look back into man's history. Perhaps, then, you are saying, look, humans have shown such a natural propensity to form theistic belief and look at those atheists trying to tell themselves that God does not exist. Perhaps that is why you think atheism is inherently reactionary.

First, I still don't understand what any of this has to do with the actual truth/falsity of theism in general and your brand of theism in particular. You tell me: what does any of this have to do with the truth of the matter concerning whether or not your god concept is instantiated? Perhaps the active atheists just have it right and they are the ones with the correct evidential reading. Perhaps the growing active atheism we are seeing nowadays constitutes intellectual progress. If you are not willing to bring some evidential considerations to the table, then how do you expect to even start countering this? Second, even if it were the case that we have on the whole an inherited propensity to form theistic belief, you cannot expect this to be manifested equally everywhere throughout the population. There should presumably be a bell-curve-like or some such distribution that accounts for differentiation in both genetic inheritence and environmental stimulation. Maybe you would be on one end of the spectrum, forming theistic belief just willy-nilly and thinking the absence of such is plain crazy talk; whereas there would be others on the other end of the spectrum who do not share such proclivity at all. In that case, it may simply be ignorance coupled with your inability to step back from your own proclivity that causes you to mistakenly claim that atheists deep down really believe but are just somehow fighting it and fooling themselves. Third, again even if it were the case that we have on the whole an inherited propensity to form theistic belief, it seems rather dubious on the surface that this has proved a reliable faculty for the production of true beliefs. In that same body of anthropological evidence discussed above, it would be hard to count the number of different and potentially conflicting god concepts this faculty produced in humans throughout history. It would be hard for you to make a case for the reliability of this process that brought about your theistic belief, given such a track record. You will probably want to tell me one of a few things or some combination of them: either (1) only your particular god concept is instantiated, which is rather provincial and would make you one of the lucky few for whom his natural propensity for theistic belief actually fired accurately; or (2) although there are many different and potentially conflicting takes on the specifics, the general or vague idea or human intuition of god that unites all these picks out at least something actual; or (3) that, at any rate, your belief in god is not merely the product of some natural propensity for such belief but is also based on sufficient evidence. I would still say, in any case, that your best tack is to simply present evidential considerations. If you think (1) is the case, then what are you reasons for thinking it is the case? If you think (2) is the case, then what are your reasons for thinking it is the case? If you think (3) is the case, then simply explain what the sufficient evidence is. Fourth, again even if it were the case that we have on the whole a propensity to form theistic belief, I think there are viable evolutionary explanations for this. There are many books on this subject if you are interested in differing viewpoints. For instance, I was just reading a book by Matthew Alper in which he argues that natural propensity for belief in gods and immortality came about due to considerations related to our having come to awareness of our own death. He makes the case that such propensity had survival functions, principally related to regulating otherwise gripping fears and attitudes of dread toward the inevitability of death. I have seen other works that suggest theistic belief and religion are predominantly spandrels or attendent by-products of something else that is selected for. I have seen other works that suggest theistic belief and religion are evolutionarily explained predominantly by considerations of group selection theory. There are many different views as food for thought. All of them are of course consistent with theistic belief's being at the end of the day false despite its having been widely held. I haven't come across one yet that I think gets it all right, but perhaps some combination of them is getting close to the most plausible explanation.

Three, despite claiming sufficient evidence, I consider faith elusive, like a deer in the woods

Okay, but surely you recognize that in debates like the ones common to this forum, it would prove more effective and constructive if you could just produce your evidence. "I'm right and I have sufficient evidence on my side, but -- sorry -- I cannot tell you what it is" is just not very convincing.

Again, I thank you for your good humor in considering these various awkward posts.

I thank you too for your clarifications of your position. I don't envision responding any more for a while since I am taking some vacation, but take care.

Originally posted by Palynka
A red herring it was then.

how dare you sir?😠 I bare my soul, and this is the response I get? Red Herring? Red herring Indeed! Harumph!😠

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit:
“Here's the problem: I can't.
For one, you are smarter than me.
Two, even though I believe there is more than sufficient evidential support for belief, forums such as these (read: moving graffiti) do not lend themselves to serious consideration. Their tabloid nature allows any post to be missed as much as ignored.
Three, despite claiming su ...[text shortened]... ely in your own mind as a product of your Desire.
etc etc

May All Beings Be Happy
😵

For one, you cannot because regarding this matter, at this level of awareness, you are a product of an ill-considered product of yours.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of 'I can't convince--- truly convince--- anyone of anything, since each man is convinced by the weight of their own convictions, individually considered. Along spiritual lines, I am less than novice to the expertise and perfection of the Holy Spirit, whose job it is to convince man on the relevant issue(s).

My consideration of the "product" has been a (nearly) life-long endeavor. I'm fairly confident at this point that the first move should be e4.

You are as smart as it gets, however even the smartest are sometimes stranded; it would be probably easier if one could balance perfectly on his IQ/EQ instead of promoting products based on approaches that derive out of dualism.
I thank you for the compliment, if such designation is valued. As an employer-at-will, I have a general rule of thumb: don't hire good looking (read: hot, leave-the-wife-and-kids hot) women, as they typically eschew work and are more of a distraction to the effort than any momentum offered in return. Translation: smart isn't necessarily a desirable commodity.

That being said, I hold that if non-dualism is truly what it is all about, the mind behind such a philosophy did an awful job of promoting the same.

What I was after, however, had more to do with an acquiescence to the fact that several folks herein are in a league above genius, LJ being one of those folks. When Mensa sat down to construct their charter, they asked him to flesh it out. Thusly armed, he can out-think my moves, sniff out my overtures, sense my endgame by simply observing my third move. I can fake any manner of discipline or school of thought, but he knows judo from juggling and is able to render them both defenseless by simply throwing me another ball.

Anything I put out as proof, he's at the ready to dismiss. I could even say, for instance, 'I am here,' and before the echoes of his salvo end, even I am convinced that I was horribly mistaken. Kind of like thinking you're you, and then finding out that you stopped being you about seven years ago.

Two, there is nothing wrong with the forums like this one.
That's like saying 'there's nothing wrong with the nightly news.' That statement can be true, if the agenda is simple broadcasting for broadcasting's sake. Bird calls are purposely short in duration.

When one cannot state clearly an idea of his on a solid basis it means his philosophy does not work, and in that case one either works harder in order to clarify his idea or he resigns because he just cannot go further -and of course he cannot go further due to the fact that he is unable to clarify pure conduct, and not because “forums such as these do not lend themselves to serious considerations”. A scholar has to be at first a strong philosopher, and philosophy without reasoning is merely theology and not philosophy at all.
It's not the lack of solid basis so much as a platform which is ill-suited for thoughtful consideration, for the close examination of intricate and complex issues necessary to make an informed decision.

Three, faith is empty but not elusive although you are unable to monitor your God by means of scientific facts and evidence.
I should have qualified it by calling it saving faith.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]For one, you cannot because regarding this matter, at this level of awareness, you are a product of an ill-considered product of yours.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of 'I can't convince--- truly convince--- anyone of anything, since each man is convinced by the weight of their own convictions, individually considered. Along spirit ...[text shortened]... acts and evidence. [/b]
I should have qualified it by calling it saving faith.[/b]

Methinks a long-life endeavor does not guarantee that one will find a fully productive shifting of the point of his/ her attention; e4 could well be the best move -in your opinion and regarding specific persons under specific circumstances, that is. You cannot prove that e4 is the best move for all regardless of the circumstances simply because according to a specific evaluation of yours is the “best move”. And of course you recognize on the spot that this thought of yours is as empty as my answer.

I made no compliments, I acknowledged a condition.
The core of the non-dualism awareness cannot be understood by a non-concentrated mind because there is nothing to be conceptually understood. Non-dualism can become a product of both conceptual and non-conceptual awareness when the meditator overcomes all the modifications of the mind after a specific shifting of one’s attention, and then keeps his/ her awareness unbroken so that s/he maintains this sight at every level without the slightest effort. There are as many procedures for this accomplishment -which is "no accomplishment" for it is contained in the Perfected Nature of the meditator- as many are the levels of the understanding of each person. I 'm sure you are well aware of this procedure!
I don't know where from and at what exact conceptual level did you start -if you ever started, that is- your meditation over shunyata and thus you appear so sure that this approach is false and/ or it leads to a dead end. However I acknowledge that the most books concerning shunyata are products of ignorance, false interpretations and false translations, therefore I cannot dismiss in full your claim.

Finally, if you do feel you have a solid basis (solid I consider a product based on science and philosophy, not a product based on theology), then bring it on🙂


What is “saving faith”?
😵