The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[Paladin]

Ahem... anyway, getting back on task

Doesn't the theist have it the hardest because of the dilemma of using a logical approach to proof anyway? I mean, perhaps I have it all wrong here but if we were to ask the theist, ala Socratic "please define your terms" style of logic wouldn't that necessarily then negate the concept of " that which is beyond definition?" So, the moment we ask the believer in God to prove the existence of his God, we have in fact set him up for failure to begin with.
Nicht wahr?

[Dondi]

I would think that the theist would have the harder time because the atheist is not trying to convert anyone to their side for the purpose of "saving" them. There is no eternal consequence in the eyes of the atheist, so there is no dire need to "spread the gospel", so to speak, unless you are someone like Sam Harris, concerned with present world condition in relation to theistic faith.

Theists, on the other hand, must try and convince people of God because a lack of belief in God has detrimental consequences, at least that is the case in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic models.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ahem... anyway, getting back on task

Doesn't the theist have it the hardest because of the dilemma of using a logical approach to proof anyway? I mean, perhaps I have it all wrong here but if we were to ask the theist, ala Socratic "please define your terms" style of logic wouldn't that necessarily then negate the concept of " that which is beyond definition?" So, the moment we ask the believer in God to prove the existence of his God, we have in fact set him up for failure to begin with.
Nicht wahr?

The atheist claims his logical argument came from the mud. The theist claims the atheist logical argument came from the mud. Does mud require further definition?

[Paladin]

In that particular model, perhaps not. However that wasn't the model I had in mind with my premise.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

The atheist claims his logical argument came from the mud. The theist claims the atheist logical argument came from the mud. Does mud require further definition? No? Then neither does God.

Good one!

Originally Posted by Genesis 2:7

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

[Paladin]

I think what I'm trying to get across here is that to use a linear dynamic to explain/prove a non linear reality is not helpful at best.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I think what I'm trying to get across here is that to use a linear dynamic to explain/prove a non linear reality is not helpful at best.

You're right, Paladin. Unfortunately, then you are stuck with the "you just need to open your mind to the idea" argument, which is not always well met with hardcore skeptics.

[Paladin]

Wan't it Aristotle that said to " entertain an idea without accepting it is the mark of an educated mind?"

If the skeptic disagrees I am more than okay with that, for in his model the theist loses the debate having no real argument not riddled with fallacy. Apologetics become a poor substitute for a well formed argument.
This would then have to lead us to debate whether syllogism is absolute or, is there a higher level of reasoning which by its own nature encompases yet trancends standard linear logic.

Now remember I'm posting this as a Buddhist, but in all fairness I see something beyond our use of logic so far.

Didn't Jesus say something about having come "Not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it?"
If that were taken to mean by trancending the law, or logic as it were, we both satisfy it's tenets and yet move beyond it?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Wan't it Aristotle that said to " entertain an idea without accepting it is the mark of an educated mind?"

If the skeptic disagrees I am more than okay with that, for in his model the theist loses the debate having no real argument not riddled with fallacy. Apologetics become a poor substitute for a well formed argument.
This would then have to lead us to debate whether syllogism is absolute or, is there a higher level of reasoning which by its own nature encompases yet trancends standard linear logic.

Now remember I'm posting this as a Buddhist, but in all fairness I see something beyond our use of logic so far.

Didn't Jesus say something about having come "Not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it?"
If that were taken to mean by trancending the law, or logic as it were, we both satisfy it's tenets and yet move beyond it?

If you want to build a new "philosopher's stone," please keep in mind that it will only work through mutual agreement and respect for the concept on the part of all parties involved. {a "love your enemies" sort of thing?}

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

This would then have to lead us to debate whether syllogism is absolute or, is there a higher level of reasoning which by its own nature encompases yet trancends standard linear logic.

IMHO, a good place to start exploring this concept would be in the study of creativity and innovation, the "eureka!" moment. One might ask the question, "Where do these new ideas come from?"

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

If you want to build a new "philosopher's stone," please keep in mind that it will only work through mutual agreement and respect for the concept on the part of all parties involved. {a "love your enemies" sort of thing?}

{{Seattlegal}}

Was this in question?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

{{Seattlegal}}

Was this in question?

Hey, I mosh with some pretty hardcore skeptics. {Some of which don't even recognize behavioural science and psychology as "true science."} I'm used to having everything questioned.

[Paladin]

Ah the spirit of inquiry!
That seems healthy enough, as long as we are willing to even question our own motivation and methods holding nothing as sacrosanct.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ah the spirit of inquiry!
That seems healthy enough, as long as we are willing to even question our own motivation and methods holding nothing as sacrosanct.

No absolutes? Wouldn't one then risk being stuck within the realm of realitivism?

[Paladin]

Ive always thought the concept of relativism to be a bit of a strawman.
But to answer the question more directly, in the spirit of Zen practice there is the idea that we enter zazen or practice with "no gaining idea" In other words we arent' trying to get anywhere or gain anything.
Now, in other types of practice we begin by questioning even our very selves, and our intent.
I remember Davy Crockett being quoted as saying "make sure you are right, then go ahead"

So in that context, yes by all means question, question, question.
even question the method and mode of the question itself. Sound confusing? Yes, quite, even mad in a way, but the conflict resolves itself nicely within the word "humility"