Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

This supposes the thesis that there indeed is such a thing as the 'objective' or 'universal' argument.

---

Surely an argument about the universe can be 'universal' :laugh4:

I didn't say detached from its cultural ties, I said understood within it's cultural connections so one can try and understand the intent of the speaker. Two polar opposites methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

how is the universe more of an abstract concept than a hedgehog?

---

"More" is not part of my reply. The one is an abstract concept, the other is not. Regarding the latter: over and above whatever socio-linguistic context is implied with the word hedgehog: it can bite your toe. The universe cannot. It is simply an idea.

Quote:

---

how does mutual exclusivity matter?

---

What is mutually exclusive cannot be what is precluded by its definition: a square cannot be a circle.

Quote:

---

a thing cannot be both an atom and a hedgehog, because hedgehogs are composed of atoms, right?

---

Right, A hedgehog cannot be an atom. A hedgehog may be composed on atoms, but the meaning of atom and hedgehog are different.

Quote:

---

tldr.

---

I don't know what this means.

Quote:

---

but then objects are just contingent in form, not substance. you can say "object X could be otherwise, or not be at all", but in this universe, under conservation, that means object X's matter could be arranged differently, or could be transformed entirely into energy. so the existence of matter/energy is not contingent, just its form. in order to break conservation, and thus demonstrate that matter/energy is contingent, you have to suppose that a universe can exist without any matter or energy. on its face, this seems absurd, but i'll have to think about it more.

---

I actually changed the word "form" to "composition" as form is too loaded a term. If I understood your point above you are confusing subject and predicate. Materiality is a predication.

Quote:

---

i'll not argue this for the time being. but if a "causal tie" is not determinable, that does beg a question.

---

Yes, one either assumes causality or assumes things come into being ex nihilo.

Quote:

---

free will.

---

It is a question of judgment not free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

How do you arrive at conclusion that a hedgehog is not an abstract thing, but the universe are? Im inquiring because a hedgehog could as well as the universe be an abstract thing to the mind. Where is the exact difference? That you can observe the hedgehog with the senses? I think that has been showed throughly not to fulfill much. (Eg. Hume et. al.)

ps. interresting discussion, keep it up and dont let my comment derail you

---

Hi Sjakihata,

Since your studying ideas and referenced Hume I'll give you a Kantian reply: a hedgehog contains noumenal content, the universe doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

No serious thinker would validate an argument based on the pedigree of its proponents nor would they pass it based on merits of age. Bloodlines and pensions do not a valid argument make. The argument must stand on its own merits not on its debators.

---

Hi Papewaio,

I did not validate any argument, but rather invalidated an argument. I did so based on a supposedly relevant portion of the piece which I quoted. The content of the quote was sophomoric and therefore dismissible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is a question of judgment not free will.

---

i choose to ignore my judgements. :blank2:

Quote:

---

hedgehog: it can bite your toe. The universe cannot. It is simply an idea.

---

A hedgehog can bite my toe so it exists. Yet the universe cannot so it does not? What about the other senses. I can see the universe. Point a telescope at the sky, there is the universe, not all of it, but still. It could burn you if you got too close to parts of it, freeze you in other parts. It exerts gravitational forces on you and me and the rest of itself. How is it simply an idea.

On a smaller scale does my neighbor's house not exist to an ant at my feet? It cannot touch it, it can only see part of the roof, would it exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

i choose to ignore my judgements. :blank2:

---

I see said the blind man. ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

A hedgehog can bite my toe so it exists. Yet the universe cannot so it does not? What about the other senses. I can see the universe. Point a telescope at the sky, there is the universe, not all of it, but still. It could burn you if you got too close to parts of it, freeze you in other parts. It exerts gravitational forces on you and me and the rest of itself. How is it simply an idea.

On a smaller scale does my neighbor's house not exist to an ant at my feet? It cannot touch it, it can only see part of the roof, would it exist?

---

Hello,

You do not understand. My post(s) say nothing about existence. The focus is the difference between abstract concepts and what is not. Let me illustrate with a different example. Imagine Borat wanted to visit Harvard University. We go up through Cambridge Massachusetts and I show him the JFK School of Government Buildings, the Widener Library, the Malkin Athletics Center, Annenberg Hall etc. After I show him these and other things, imagine he were to say 'All very nice, but I want to see Harvard University make Kazakhstan great: show me University'. I would have to then explain these buildings are what make the University. Harvard University is the larger label we give to these various buildings taken together. Harvard University itself is a mental construct only that gives a certain meaning to the various things shown. It does not have a distinct physicality like the Widener Library or any hedgehog we might happen to see while crossing the yard.

But you could show Borat a spike, then a tooth, then a whisker, and then an eye an he would say "All very nice, but I want to see the hedgehog".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Sjakihata,

Since your studying ideas and referenced Hume I'll give you a Kantian reply: a hedgehog contains noumenal content, the universe doesn't.

---

This is how I understand noumena: they are objects of the mind, that may or may not exists and they may or may not be acknowledged, if you possesse other abilities of cognition than that of a human being. The problem with noumena arises if it is confused with an object and is thought of as a phenomenon. Therefore, the noumena has to negatively guide us to the limits of the categories, to what can actually be experienced.

So I would say it is the opposite, that the universe is a noumenon and that the hedgehog is a phenomenon. The universe is not necessarily an abstract idea as much as it is a theory (maybe you consider abstract ideas = theories). Anyway, Im not sure exactly of what Im arguing here, Im just inclined to disagree that the universe, as such, is more abstract than the idea of a hedgehog, to me they would either be equally abstract or not abstract at all. As long as they are categorized the same.

edit: i just read your post with the analogy to the Harvard University. I think Im inclined to be more atomistic in my view of the world. To me Harvard University, The Earth or any country could be viewed as abstract, following your reasoning. To me, however, they aren't. Since I think of them also as unities. Denmark consists of seperate parts, true, but these parts brought together constitutes Denmark and that consitution is valid. A hedgehog has legs, spikes, snout and whatnot - these brought together makes a hedgehog. Im aware the the analogy perhaps isnt entirely valid, however, I think it is cogent and that it conveys my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But you could show Borat a spike, then a tooth, then a whisker, and then an eye an he would say "All very nice, but I want to see the hedgehog".

---

If a spike, tooth, whisker and eye were all disperse then Borat would have a point. If not, then I could indeed show him (assuming one of the rodents was in the area). Concepts and physical objects are ontically distinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

This is how I understand noumena: they are objects of the mind...

---

This is not correct. Noumena are neither part of the categories or the transcendental. They are not objects of the mind or mental events. Noumena constitute the necessary ontic grounding for phenomena (the Ding an sich) that allow the subject to escape solipsism and have experiential knowledge beyond the self. Concepts alone lack noumenal content. To quote from Kant: "Concepts without sensations are empty"

Quote:

---

edit: i just read your post with the analogy to the Harvard University. I think Im inclined to be more atomistic in my view of the world. To me Harvard University, The Earth or any country could be viewed as abstract, following your reasoning. To me, however, they aren't. Since I think of them also as unities. Denmark consists of seperate parts, true, but these parts brought together constitutes Denmark and that consitution is valid. A hedgehog has legs, spikes, snout and whatnot - these brought together makes a hedgehog. Im aware the the analogy perhaps isnt entirely valid, however, I think it is cogent and that it conveys my position.

---

Denmark is a political designation and as such is a mental construct. There is nothing in the Jutland Peninsula (and surrounding Islands) that suggest or require the posit. In other words, you can't kick Denmark while you could kick a hedgehog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If a spike, tooth, whisker and eye were all disperse then Borat would have a point. If not, then I could indeed show him (assuming one of the rodents was in the area). Concepts and physical objects are ontically distinct.

---

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ly&btnG=Search

:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. Noumena are neither part of the categories or the transcendental. They are not objects of the mind or mental events. Noumena constitute the necessary ontic grounding for phenomena (the Ding an sich) that allow the subject to escape solipsism and have experiential knowledge beyond the self. Concepts alone lack noumenal content. To quote from Kant: "Concepts without sensations are empty"

---

I think you misunderstand me. Im not saying they a category. What Im saying is, that they only make sense thinking of them (with the mind), since they cannot be discovered. Noumena are indeed ding an sich, whereas the phenomenon is the ding für uns. What I mean is that it doesnt make sense to say something has noumenal content, since we cannot know if they have it or not. It is only supposing and I do not agree with the kantian theory since I find it hollow and senseless, although rather complex.

And the definition I quoted was taken by a danish scholar, expert in Kant and Hegel, Im sure it is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ly&btnG=Search

:sweatdrop:

---

Ontically is the adverbial usage of the adjective ontic which itself is derived from the Greek ont or ontos. This is the root of the word ontology that refers to the study of being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

I think you misunderstand me. Im not saying they a category. What Im saying is, that they only make sense thinking of them (with the mind), since they cannot be discovered.

---

I see. That is not what "they are objects of the mind..." leads one to typically understand.

Quote:

---

What I mean is that it doesnt make sense to say something has noumenal content, since we cannot know if they have it or not.

---

This is incorrect. Any phenomenal object, by that designation, has ipso facto a noumenal component insofar as it has being.

Quote:

---

And the definition I quoted was taken by a danish scholar, expert in Kant and Hegel, Im sure it is valid.

---

There are no quotes in your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If a spike, tooth, whisker and eye were all disperse then Borat would have a point. If not, then I could indeed show him (assuming one of the rodents was in the area). Concepts and physical objects are ontically distinct.

---

Noob Alert:

So should we qualify this argument by saying we are talking about the concept of the universe rather then the visible/measurable/quantifiable/ known portion of it that we have access to it.

I could state that there is no physical phenomena in the known portion of our universe that states that the concept of God is a physical object. But that does not preclude either the concept or physical object of God existing in the concept of the universe.

Would this be parallel in scope to saying that just because I see a field with no cattle, that it is conceptually possible that there are cattle in another field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, it does not. You do not understand. The argument is valid.

---

You're dismissing your own 'logic argument' for the existence of God as "begging the question" then. It's why I said "putting it in the premise" in the first place.

Quote:

---

Chronology does not impact the meaning. Atheism is conceptually distinct. Atheism and neutrality regarding Deity are not the same.

---

So a person who was born before L. Ron Hubbard was an Axenuist even before scientology was invented. So everyone was an Axenuist before the word Xenu and its accompanying 'meaning' was even invented? God is just a three-letter word.

Quote:

---

This comment: "It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all." is a non sequitur.

---

No it is not. Without any evidence, proof, knowledge and understanding you cannot define anything. Hence, no definition, no claim.
However, there is a definition and claim borne out of a knowledge-void, hence it is already wrong and it does not exist.

It is worse that a totally blind guy defining color, thunder or blackholes without any evidence, proof, knowledge or understanding.

Worse since color, thunder and blackholes are all physical phenomenon following the laws of physics while your baseless God is metaphysical and does not abide any laws of physics.

Blind & Deaf guy: Colors smell bad, it exist.
Blind & Deaf guy: Thunder is sweet, it exist.
Blind & Deaf guy: Blackholes are soft to the touch, it exists.

They can't even define it hence, whatever they define as colors, thunder or blackholes do not exist! Just as the way you define god.

Quote:

---

I have never made this comment: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." neither does it relate to the topic.

---

It has everything to do with the topic. Your god claim is dependent on your 'knowledge' that a God performed a supernatural phenomenon on your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This does not relate to the topic. Neither does it show me saying: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." Either your memory was poor or you did not understand. Given what you posted and the series of partial quotes my guess is you did not understand. For example your use of God sending signals that are "one way". Note my original post and what it was in response to:

---

It does relate. Why would I mention it if it doesn't? I say, no proof, then it doesn't exist. No proof, then no KNOWLEDGE. You claim your knowledge is derived from God itself. I say, you have no knowledge of God as you claim.

Hence, I can continue with the "No proof, hence it does not exist" line.

Quote:

---

Now, unless one wishes to argue science can and does breach the metaphysical barrier this seems a rather obvious point.

I provided a good number of posts in the thread you cited which should have been (and I think remain) useful. This was the last posted by me to yourself:

---

The universe follows the laws of physics. You claim, God can manipulate the physical world by rules that DO NOT follow physics (hence, 'one-way'), as it did inside your head (this revelation event that happened to you).

As an analogy of your claim, God can 'click' the mouse without using any physical force. That's impossible.

Quote:

---

I continue to insist you would be better served if you actually studied logic before making pronouncements about the discipline. It appears by your posts since that time, this has not occurred. It also appears you would rather pursue private agendas since none of your posts to me relate to the focus of the thread. This also is unfortunate.

---

You just dismissed your very own 'logic' for God as 'begging the question'.

Stupid nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

At the end of the day, those of you who have convinced yourself that it is not possible that God exists (Quietus, et. al) or thiat is not possible to logically fathom whether God exists or not (Sasaki, et. al.) have commited the same error of logic that you accuse believers in God of.... you have precluded the possiblity that you might be wrong.

---

LOL. Nice wording Don Corleone.
Atheism is a rejection of Theistic claim. Hence, you convinced me to reject your claim that God exists.

If I reword my questions to Del Arroyo using your sentiments, then:
1) Name as many, entities/beings/things that you've convinced yourself
that does not exist.
2) How did you convinced yourself they do not exist?
3) What's the difference between these entities/beings/things that do not exist and God that exists.

Quote:

---

There is nothing, no evidence, no proof that I could provide to Quietus that would convince him that God's non-existence is in fact erroneous.

---

You use the same to reject Tom Cruise, Heaven's Gate, the Pastafarians, Ghosts and Jedi, etc.

Quote:

---

Any evidence on the matter (and at the end of the day, faith is belief in the absence of empirical evidence) would be rejected through one interpretation of facts or another. I sadly suspect even an encounter with the Almighty Himself would be rejected. Likewise, Sasaki would sit, judgement neutral, refusing to commit, even under such circumstances.

I'm not picking you two out to embarrass you. I just find that you two make as glib arguments for your respective positions as anyone, so I'm making you symoblic figureheads of your respective camps.

To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?

---

1) When it is possible for a totally blind & deaf guy to define colors, thunder and blackholes, without evidence, proof, knowledge or understanding then it could be possible (defining God is actually far, far worse than that since it doesn't follow the laws of physics) 2)God, as it is defined, has to appear physically

Quote:

---

I can in fact freely admit that it's very possible that I am wrong and God doesn't exist. For me, question 2 is more difficult to answer, but I suppose it would come down to an absence of the personal, anecdotal 'evidence' (and it's not empirical evidence, I just use that term for a lack of a better word). You see, I truly see prayers answered in my life. Sometimes I don't recognize them as such, but upon further reflection, I do. Were I to describe these events to you, I'm sure they would sound like campfire ghost stories, but there is a sense of authenticity, at a fundamental level, that I look for and recognize. It's not just random events, and it's not always a favorable outcome. Were these reinforcing, incredibly unlikely, meaningful 'coincidences' (I guess that's the best way to describe it to you) cease, I suppose my faith would falter and I would have to entertain the notion that I had previously been wrong and I had misinterpreted meaningful twists of fate.

---

Don Corleone, what are your thoughts on Xenu, Jedi and Leprechauns etc. Do they exist?

Quote:

---

How about you? Could you be wrong? When would you begin to suspect that you are?

---

See the comment above about the totally Blind & Deaf people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Stupid nature.

---

If we are the best it can come up with billions of years of evolution, I am inclined to agree.

in the case of nature, i'd go with "mindless" over "stupid". moreover, i think sentient beings with enough awareness to consider the nature of reality and send their thoughts across a planetary communication network ain't half bad for a couple billion years. nicely done nature. :thumbsup:

Given that the evolutionary principle doesn't actually care about anything more than the members of the species managing to procreate and the offpring managing the same - and even viruses, which don't quite qualify as "living things" in the stricter senses to begin with, can do that much - I'd say we're not a half bad product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Noob Alert:

So should we qualify this argument by saying we are talking about the concept of the universe rather then the visible/measurable/quantifiable/ known portion of it that we have access to it.

---

The universe is an abstract concept. It is a concept used to provide a certain context and meaning to a host of objects: planets, stars, hedgehogs etc.

Quote:

---

I could state that there is no physical phenomena in the known portion of our universe that states that the concept of God is a physical object. But that does not preclude either the concept or physical object of God existing in the concept of the universe.

Would this be parallel in scope to saying that just because I see a field with no cattle, that it is conceptually possible that there are cattle in another field.

---

Yes, one could argue that. This is not a standard view of Deity under most theologies however. God is typically seen as distinct from and independent of the created order (that which is contingent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

No, it does not. You do not understand. The argument is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

You're dismissing your own 'logic argument' for the existence of God as "begging the question" then. It's why I said "putting it in the premise" in the first place.

---

---

The above doesn't follow. See the previously noted reference and commentary:

There is a reference in Brothers Karamazov where Russian students are considered unique in that they combine absolute arrogance with total ignorance. The example is then given: if an Astronomer handed a map of the solar system to a Russian student, the student would return the map with corrections on it.

You have continued to engage on a subject matter that you are clearly unfamiliar. Your comments on basic logic are incoherent... (Such a consistent) approach suggest(s) an attitude that prohibits productive discussion which is unfortunate. I can do nothing further for you. I must leave you to your dogma. Alas.

I continue to insist you would be better served if you actually studied logic before making pronouncements about the discipline. It appears by your posts since that time, this has not occurred. It also appears you would rather pursue private agendas since none of your posts to me relate to the focus of the thread. This also is unfortunate.

Dogmatic non sequiturs are not interesting.

I thought I would have missed a whole lot more since I was here last, but the discussion slowed down to a complete stop from the philosophizing and nit-picking.

anyway...

Theists can't produce any moral or intellectual reasons for faith that are any better than those moral and intellectual reasons for the rejection of faith...

in nine pages of heated debate, I have yet to find even one good reason to become a Theist and abandon Secular Humanism/Agnosticism/Atheism... not one reason why it is in any way better than Secularism.



is anyone reading (or has already read) Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion ? - I found an audiobook version I'm going to listen to later...



and Happy Festivus and Merry X-mas to everyone celebrating over the next few days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-mas

I personally an celebrating Christmas/X-mas with my family, but because there is absolutely nothing religious about the occasion, the term 'Festivus' is probably just as valid a term for the occasion (though there is no 'Festivus pole', and the 'airing of grievances' is usually kept to a minimum, and 'the feats of strength' is usually replaced with a game of cricket)

we have a decorated Christmas trees (no angels or jesus-related ornaments though) and will exchange presents and have a family banquet... yum!

...no jesus, no prayer, no church... everybody is happy...

I'm getting my little brother Monty Python's: The Life of Brian on DVD, I don't think he's seen it yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Theists can't produce any moral or intellectual reasons for faith that are any better than those moral and intellectual reasons for the rejection of faith...

in nine pages of heated debate, I have yet to find even one good reason to become a Theist and abandon Secular Humanism/Agnosticism/Atheism... not one reason why it is in any way better than Secularism.

---

Hi Claudius,

This is not the issue you put forward. When I asked what your issue was you asked: "Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?" This was answered. The above is a different focus. In the above you raise two points: 'intellectual and moral' reasons for a theistic or secular stance. If intellectual means rational then that has been covered. I have already shown how strong atheism is an absurdity (logically incoherent) and weak atheism is irrelevant. I have also given in the course of the thread a simple proof for god that none have been able to show was invalid and was in fact recognized as valid by several would be skeptics. This would seem to solve the first issue. Regarding the moral question that can be dealt with if you wish.

Whether you want to pursue the topic further or no you should be aware that atheism is not a new idea, but in the 2500 year course of the Western Intellectual Tradition it has had few supporters. There are reasons for this. You may wish to note there are no examples of full atheistic philosophical systems. The view is philosophically problematic.

Note: you made a remark about nit picking. I'm not sure what you were thinking, but be aware that rationality is concerned with rigor, rigor means a more narrow focus is often necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hi Claudius,

This is not the issue you put forward. When I asked what your issue was you asked: "Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?" This was answered. The above is a different focus. In the above you raise two points: 'intellectual and moral' reasons for a theistic or secular stance. If intellectual means rational then that has been covered. I have already shown how strong atheism is an absurdity (logically incoherent) and weak atheism is irrelevant. I have also given in the course of the thread a simple proof for god that none have been able to show was invalid and was in fact recognized as valid by several would be skeptics. This would seem to solve the first issue. Regarding the moral question that can be dealt with if you wish.

Whether you want to pursue the topic further or no you should be aware that atheism is not a new idea, but in the 2500 year course of the Western Intellectual Tradition it has had few supporters. There are reasons for this. You may wish to note there are no examples of full atheistic philosophical systems. The view is philosophically problematic.

Note: you made a remark about nit picking. I'm not sure what you were thinking, but be aware that rationality is concerned with rigor, rigor means a more narrow focus is often necessary.

---

Hey Pindar,

okay rephrasing... Would Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc benefit considerably from an organized yet secular community structure?

You mention a simple proof of god... which simple proof of god is this? I either missed it or forgot about it... IF it's the argument of determinism then I already posted that article several pages ago by Richard Dawkins (Why there is almost certainly no god) which directly criticized the deterministic argument.

I don't see strong Atheism as logically incoherent, and I do see weak Atheism as still relevant. your arguments for those two points were not convincing.

I'm very aware that Atheism is an old idea, I've studied a bit of ancient philosophy...

the 'nit-picking' is just a comment that the discussion seemed far more about Hedgehogs and the definition of 'The Universe' than it did about Atheism and other secular views.

and keep in mind please that I'm a Humanist - which has a quite extensive philosophy... Atheism by itself doesn't really need such an extensive philosophy as a separate ideology from that of Humanist philosophy.

if you want to argue that Theism/Religion is ethically superior to Atheism and similar views (ie: Humanism), then go ahead... I don't see much evidence to support that though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Hey Pindar,

okay rephrasing... Would Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc benefit considerably from an organized yet secular community structure?

---

Howdy,

To what end? As previously explained: atheism and agnosticism are epistemic stances concerning an Absolute. The stances alone need no organization. Humanism is a rhetorical focus. It does not require an organization either.

Quote:

---

You mention a simple proof of god... which simple proof of god is this?

---

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinite regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

The Dawkins' piece you posted did not respond to the argument. The Dawkins' piece was a rant that showed no familiarity with philosophical discourse. An argument is either valid or invalid. If you believe the above is invalid demonstrate it. If you cannot then the argument holds.

Quote:

---

I don't see strong Atheism as logically incoherent...

---

Then you did not understand. This is the stance again: "The strong form (of Atheism) is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative." If you believe one can prove a negative do so, otherwise the argument holds.

Quote:

---

(A)nd I do see weak Atheism as still relevant.

---

This is the criticism of the weak form: "The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject ..." A belief position that makes no knowledge claim about the larger universe is irrelevant as it is simply self reflective.

Quote:

---

your arguments for those two points were not convincing.

---

Whether you are convinced is not my concern. Rationality revolves around logic which is independent of personal opinion.

Quote:

---

I'm very aware that Atheism is an old idea, I've studied a bit of ancient philosophy...

---

Then you should be very aware of the various problems with the view.

Quote:

---

and keep in mind please that I'm a Humanist - which has a quite extensive philosophy... Atheism by itself doesn't really need such an extensive philosophy as a separate ideology from that of Humanist philosophy.

---

Humanism and atheism are not the same. The one does not entail the other. Atheism as part of a larger philosophical rubric implodes which is why there are no philosophical belief systems that include it. Atheism as a stand alone epistemic claim faces the problems already noted.

Quote:

---

if you want to argue that Theism/Religion is ethically superior to Atheism and similar views (ie: Humanism), then go ahead... I don't see much evidence to support that though...

---

I have no particular wants. I'm not asking any questions. If the moral issue interests you we can explore that, but first I would rather you are clear on your first claim(s) which are readdressed above.

Note: simply citing random sites off the internet is not helpful. It does not demonstrate any understanding of the issue(s). It is better to exercise your own faculties to come to a defendable conclusion or accept the rational alternative.