|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Quote:
Rockdogg asked you a good question. Here it is:
Quote:
[on atheism not being a philosophical principle]
What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?
Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.
No, atheism is a religious belief - or an anti-religious belief. It has everything to do with theology and nothing to do with philosophy. It is absolutely a theological viewpoint.
Which is it?
Religious? or Anti-Religious?
Saying you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean you're in any way connected to science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,950 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,950 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rockdogg asked you a good question. Here it is:
Quote:
[on atheism not being a philosophical principle]
What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?
Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.
No, atheism is a religious belief - or an anti-religious belief. It has everything to do with theology and nothing to do with philosophy. It is absolutely a theological viewpoint.
Which is it?
Religious? or Anti-Religious?
Saying you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean you're in any way connected to science.
quoting to fix the quote fails. 
I believe what he was stating is that atheism is as much a belief system as any religion... just as ::gasp:: evolution/science. They are ALL belief systems.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I read Atlas Shrugged this past fall. I bought the fountainhead but it's still in que.
Honestly, I can't say that I've 'read' it even once. I've listened to the unabridged version (narrated by Scott Brick) many times. In the midst of it again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I believe what he was stating is that atheism is as much a belief system as any religion... just as ::gasp:: evolution/science. They are ALL belief systems.
Well, yes, but more than that. Atheism is a theological belief system, no different (in a factual sense) than Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism or Voodooism is.
What atheism is NOT is a philosophical belief system.
I hope that clarifies it. For the completely stupid, I won't try to explain it any further than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Well to explain something to someone you think is stupid would require you to have at least half your brain functioning from somewhere other than the lower end of your colon. Other than that your statement about atheism being a theological principle because you say atheism is a theological principle would qualify you to be a theologist in the same way Haslam saying he didn't know what was going on in his company would qualify him as completely innocent. It's nice to see there are certain consistencies in this world, like the way your arrogant yet ignorant method of discussion has not changed. I still remember you promising Sarah Palin was going to save this country. That's some real anarchy there! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
Please don't think I'm being a smart-ass, but what does Marx have to do with an individual being atheist?
That was a separate response to a2d bringing up reading Adam Smith. As far as I know, Marx has no explicit position on theism as a belief. Religion, yes he says some things about that, but not about theism as such.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
Well, yes, but more than that. Atheism is a theological belief system, no different (in a factual sense) than Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism or Voodooism is.
What you should have written is "atheism can be a theological belief system." People do take it this way, but that doesn't mean it is not also a philosophical concept.
I think we can clear this up with one question: Is Rene Descartes a philosopher or a theologian? Before I give my answer, I'll give you a chance to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well, yes, but more than that. Atheism is a theological belief system, no different (in a factual sense) than Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism or Voodooism is.
What you should have written is "atheism can be a theological belief system." People do take it this way, but that doesn't mean it is not also a philosophical concept.
I think we can clear this up with one question: Is Rene Descartes a philosopher or a theologian? Before I give my answer, I'll give you a chance to respond.
I'll further muddy your waters for you. Was St. Thomas Aquinas a philosopher or a theologian.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Thanks for clearing that up, because I was scratching my trying to make sense out of it, but now I understand the context and not once did you use the words stupid or ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
I read Atlas Shrugged this past fall. I bought the fountainhead but it's still in que.
Honestly, I can't say that I've 'read' it even once. I've listened to the unabridged version (narrated by Scott Brick) many times. In the midst of it again.
But, let me further ask. How did you like Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged'? Glean anything from it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Speaking of understanding the context...I was scratching my head. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
I'll further muddy your waters for you. Was St. Thomas Aquinas a philosopher or a theologian.
That's actually a good question. I'd say he was a theologian who used philosophical reasoning. So, now we have philosophers who call themselves Thomists. I guess you would resist the label "philosopher" for these people, but that's what they call themselves nonetheless.
As for Descartes, he is regarded as the father of modern philosophy, and we are all well aware of his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am." Nothing could be more philosophical, right? But a crucial principle of the cogito ergo sum is that God provides the conditions for Descartes to know himself as a thinking being. Therefore, theism is at the heart of one of the most well known philosophical arguments.
Now, Descartes did some theology too, and you might want to argue that Decartes' cogito ergo sum is actaully not philosophy at all because it relies on theism for its truth. That's fine, but be aware that claiming the cogito ergo sum is theology and not philosophy is a rather difficult position to maintain. Would even Ayn Rand say Descartes was not a philosopher? Perhaps she would......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
That's actually a good question. I'd say he was a theologian who used philosophical reasoning. So, now we have philosophers who call themselves Thomists. I guess you would resist the label "philosopher" for these people, but that's what they call themselves nonetheless.
The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.
Quote:
As for Descartes, he is regarded as the father of modern philosophy, and we are all well aware of his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am." Nothing could be more philosophical, right? But a crucial principle of the cogito ergo sum is that God provides the conditions for Descartes to know himself as a thinking being. Therefore, theism is at the heart of one of the most well known philosophical arguments.
Since Descartes was not a theologian, I dismissed your question as errant or a ruse.
Quote:
Now, Descartes did some theology too, and you might want to argue that Decartes' cogito ergo sum is actually not philosophy at all because it relies on theism for its truth. That's fine, but be aware that claiming the cogito ergo sum is theology and not philosophy is a rather difficult position to maintain. Would even Ayn Rand say Descartes was not a philosopher? Perhaps she would......
Not so much. She wouldn't have said that the likes of Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, et al, were not philosophers either. All of them wrote about theological issues, some more than others and some more glowingly than others.
You might say that we, on this very minor scale, have had discussions about it. Are we then philosophers and/or theologians too?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I know that Anarchy takes every available opportunity to stroke his ego by telling people he fears that he's ignoring them, but I'd like to delve into this debate, because it's a good one. If he does the defense mechanism thing again where he highlights 'you are ignoring this user' with a laugh icon, I'll just smile/frown to myself... Quote:
The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.
Quote:
Since Descartes was not a theologian, I dismissed your question as errant or a ruse.
I know it looks like I'm trying to box him into differing opinions ... and that's possible ... but despite all that ... there's a great truth to the questions he raises. They're very valid, and thoughtful.
But thoughts?
Can a philosopher be just that or a theologian or both? And vice versa?
Is there exclusivity to the debate? Or does one negate the other?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.
You've changed the premise of the argument. Your original claim was that atheism could not be a philosophical principle. I responded that theism is a core principle of Descartes' cogito ergo sum. So the question remains, is the cogito philosophy? Answer the question. It's not hard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.
You've changed the premise of the argument. Your original claim was that atheism could not be a philosophical principle. I responded that theism is a core principle of Descartes' cogito ergo sum. So the question remains, is the cogito philosophy? Answer the question. It's not hard.
No I haven't. My view is that theology and philosophy are not mutually inclusive. It is you that started this discussion (which has been veered from the topic that I originally posted) to attack Rand's philosophy and questioned how a Christian could accept her philosophical views (either in part or in whole).
My view is that atheism is not a philosophical principle but a theological one. And other than Descartes being a philosopher, he has no relation to Rand. So, I think therefore I am. And Descartes' full statement was: Dubito, ergo cognito, ergo sum. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.
It's a sound statement. To doubt that one's self exists presupposes that one can think which in turn presupposes one exists.
Blah, blah, blah.
Since you tried to start by ridiculing me personally (an I'm tiring of your stupidity) I'll begin ignoring you if you wish.
If you cannot accept my premise that atheism is a theological view, why should I care to continue going around in circles with you.
My point in bringing up Aquinas was to prove that theology isn't the same as philosophy. Philosophy is secular.
When someone tries to tie their theological views (atheist, Christian, Islamic or any religion) into philosophy, it begins to corrode. That isn't to say that it can completely be thrown out, but certain aspects tied to such theological views probably should be thrown out. To use idiomatic language, it would be akin to 'separating the wheat from the chaff'.
Now, do you understand?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the redefinition game." The cynical view of this game is as follows: Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually redefines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact," but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along. The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by "religious." "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power--especially in some sort of God--and by faith and worship. (It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not "religion" according to such a definition.) Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well--such as science, politics, and watching TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Quote:
That's actually a good question. I'd say he was a theologian who used philosophical reasoning. So, now we have philosophers who call themselves Thomists. I guess you would resist the label "philosopher" for these people, but that's what they call themselves nonetheless.
The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.
Quote:
As for Descartes, he is regarded as the father of modern philosophy, and we are all well aware of his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am." Nothing could be more philosophical, right? But a crucial principle of the cogito ergo sum is that God provides the conditions for Descartes to know himself as a thinking being. Therefore, theism is at the heart of one of the most well known philosophical arguments.
Since Descartes was not a theologian, I dismissed your question as errant or a ruse.
Quote:
Now, Descartes did some theology too, and you might want to argue that Decartes' cogito ergo sum is actually not philosophy at all because it relies on theism for its truth. That's fine, but be aware that claiming the cogito ergo sum is theology and not philosophy is a rather difficult position to maintain. Would even Ayn Rand say Descartes was not a philosopher? Perhaps she would......
Not so much. She wouldn't have said that the likes of Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, et al, were not philosophers either. All of them wrote about theological issues, some more than others and some more glowingly than others.
You might say that we, on this very minor scale, have had discussions about it. Are we then philosophers and/or theologians too?
It seems that PDR is a believer in the "Thomasitic System of Right Reason", even though he has no clue of it's meaning.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Just some food for thought, but I don't get why many think Ayn Rand is some "Smart philosopher" when in reality she wasn't much more then a hack IMO, and i'll explain why in more detail below. I will also get into prayer and spontaneous healing/miracles as well. Rand has a disdain for religion, but her disdain is based on a logical and knowledgeable fallacy. Rands arguments against God, just like all others, are almost always disingenuous. So lets go through this with a few questions: Quote:
Question 1: Why are simple or most atheist question related to God almost always disingenuous.
Rand, like many others uses a transparent method that is not uncommon in this form of debate. She asks a question, and then proposes the only possible answer to it. In this case Rand is being dishonest both intellectually and practically. Its part of the very reason her writings were rejected by most mainstream thinkers. She is supplying the answers she expects, in essence the answers that she wants. Without exploring other answers that just may not fit into her agenda.
Quote:
Question 2: Why does the existence of God or the involvement of God in existence as we know it necessitate complete suspension of free will and the consequences brought about by human choice?
I think that question pretty much stands on its own. Rand like many others bases her opinions on the idea that the existence of God and his involvement in existence as we know it would mean God should just completely suspend causality and circumvent human choice. According to Rand, since God doesn't do this, he doesn't exist and man is God....Some logic there....
Quote:
Question 3: What Evidence do we expect the miracles of Jesus to have left behind?
Are we looking for some very drunk wedding guests that still haven't sobered up from the water into wine?
Are we looking for a patch of water in the Sea of Galilee with footprints labeled "J.C Was here"?
Should we be looking through Nazareth Gift shops for 5000 fish bones mounted on plagues with a little red button that we can push to make them sing?
Are we supposed to be looking for a stretch of water filled with perfectly preserved demon possessed pig bones?
Exactly what evidence does Rand expect there to be left behind? What she bases her claims on non-existence of a higher power is based on logical fallacy. (I will get more into this towards the end)
Quote:
Question:4 Has Christianity been banned from the use of Metaphor?
Well that would cause some major problems with the Gospel writers, Apostle Paul, the minor prophets, and Torah which use Metaphor heavily and frequently. In fact, Metaphor is a classic Hebraic Illustrative device. One would think Rand would know this. The use of Metaphor by no means proves or disproves anything, Metaphor was just the preferred method of the writings in question, as a way to keep the readers interest on the message being conveyed. Apparently though, Christians and the Bible, let alone other religions don't get to use Metaphor....
Quote:
Question:5 Why would we expect a belief or conviction to unilaterally translated into applied behavior?
Has there ever been an idea, once, in human history that once a person was introduced to it, it universally influenced their decision processes in every person who was introduced to this idea? If that the case then thats an idea I have never been introduced to.......
Quote:
Question:6 How does coincidence provide causality?
Regarding miracles, there was an assertion made that the coincidence of spontaneous healing provided a scientific conclusion. What exactly was that conclusion?
A prayer followed by a spontaneous recovery may be a coincidence. The relationship and sequence of prayer and spontaneous recovery may very well be a coincidence,but that coincidence still leaves the spontaneous recovery completely unaddressed....
More on Miracle as they relate to the existence of a higher power
It would seem that Rand is unfamiliar with one of the more intelligent Christians, that being Immanuel Kant and his miracle critique. The short version:
To base a faith, conviction, or belief on that which is inherently an exception is an affront to ones own reason.
A miracle is necessarily an exception in normal causality, it is an exception to a normal, predictable event. thats what a miracle is. Now the moment we propose any criteria, any method, wherein a miracle can be consistently, repeatably, and predictably produced it is no longer an exception, thus no longer a miracle.
To base a faith or a belief on an exception or the lack of an exception is to base a belief or a conviction that one must necessarily apply a rule, which is an exception, to something that is a suspension of rule. To base a belief or disbelief on the tangible occurrence of an exception(Such as a miracle or other exception in the normal events of causality) as proof or evidence to disprove is logically inconsistent and intractable....Kant pointed this out.
However, as an intelligent Christian...I know this...
If you haven't i reccomend reading some of Kant's writings...You will gain far more understanding then you would from Rand. Now i have not read all of Rand's writings mind you, but some of what i have read seems to conflict in many ways with the writings of men such as Kant. I have not read all of Kants writings either, Im still in the process of that, but Kant does base his writings on sound logic.
This post is not meant as an argument, its meant to perk interests in the pursuit of knowledge....to see more then one side of a point of view, and why their are logical reasons for that point of view!
Good discussion by the way! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
A) I know what you're referring to.
Assumptions are a bad idea, most of the time.
B) I had nothing to do with the discussion you've quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
jc
two-faced (tfst)
adj.
1. Having two faces or surfaces.
2. Hypocritical or double-dealing; deceitful.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
You keep referring to the photo-shop image on his posts with completely irrelevant comments about 2 faces that have no connection to the meaning of the image as if you're demonstrating subtle cleverness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Weiner, go to school and earn your teachers pension. 
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Weiner, go to school and earn your teachers pension.
That would be - teacher's - Mitt.
Another Fail!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Here is how you discuss something with anarchy. He won't address any question directly that he thinks will defeat his position, so you have to get him talking long enough until he inadvertantly answers the question. Quote:
When someone tries to tie their theological views (atheist, Christian, Islamic or any religion) into philosophy, it begins to corrode. That isn't to say that it can completely be thrown out, but certain aspects tied to such theological views probably should be thrown out.
So, applying this position to my Descartes question, the cogito is flawed because it relies on theism. It is not thereby invalidated automatically, but it is not the most sound philosophical argument, and we should probably throw it out once we find something that doesn't rely on theism.
Now, why couldn't you just say that? You are making me do all the work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Quote:
Weiner, go to school and earn your teachers pension.
That would be - teacher's - Mitt.
Another Fail!!
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ayn Rand Novels: The Fountainhead
Essay Contest
|
|
