So why was Ammonius Saccus banned?

The BBQ Pit
461

No. What you see are that a certain (undefined) number of persons can be persuaded to either change their denomination from one that does not resonate with their life experience to one that does resonate with their life experience, or, if we are talikng about people who switch between belief and unbelief, that some smaller (but still undefined) number of persons have been persuaded that their views about the divine are better expressed in or out of a religious setting.

If choosing belief is so simple, go out and believe in the god of your choice for a week, then quit. Do not go into some random church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or high place and participate with the believers in their worship for a week while going through the motions but not believing. Go and believe what they believe.

462

Tom, you know perfectly well that prr is too rational to make such an irrational choice.

463

We should all also overlook the complete free pass I’ve been accorded by being Catholic from tomndebb. Never any friction between us. Thanks be to God for fellow Christians that only punish atheists for being dicks. :rolleyes:

464

Polycarp, just to avoid any issues, that wasn’t directed at you, just quoting for context. :slight_smile:

465

(my bolding)

tom, small nitpick, or maybe a misunderstanding on my part. From the way you’ve set this out, it gives the impression that atheism is about denying the existence of a higher power. This is not entirely accurate, ergo the weak/strong definitions of atheism. I consider myself an atheist, but I certainly do not deny the existence of a god or gods. I have no proof of their existence, but neither do I have proof of their non-existence, and therefore I suspend judgement. I merely lack a theistic belief, and therefore I’m an atheist (in terms of the weak definition).

Or have I misunderstood you?

466

For the first time, I feel comfortable heeding at least part of one of Tom’s recommendations.

Seriously, the question and answer isn’t so much “Is there a higher power? No” but “Can you show me any persuasive evidence that I need to pay the slightest attention to your bizarre claims that you have insight into the universe that I lack? Until then, kindly STFU.”

I dont presume to state definitely that there is no higher power, only that I don’t understand why you need one to be there so badly you’ll assert one absent any thoughtful process powerfully suggesting one.

You know, there’s all sorts of stuff–fairly easy stuff for an omnipotent God to do with the back of his left hand–like embedding some complex mathematical stuff into a text demonstrably thousands of years old, or including sophisticated astronomical or sub-atomic information that was knowable only very recently in an ancient text --to turn at least some atheists’ heads around. The fact that God has not deigned to embed some of this code suggests either a lazy or an ignorant God to me, or much more likely a fictional God.

But I’m willing to keep an open mind. One of the funnier signs I see around town says “Jesus Christ, Scientist.” Always brings a smile to my face.

467

Nah. It was a shorthand phrase to get the general idea out as a contrast to religious belief without taking on an involved hijack to determine just what every person who does not happen to have religious belief may or may not perceive in their world view.

In the context of a personal experience of the world, a person who does not hold religious beliefs has a shorter list of topics to discuss regarding the spiritual. Certainly there will be no discussions regarding the relative truths of Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs mere symbolism–the whole discussion does not exist.

I am not trying to peg any belief on atheists, merely pointing out that if one identifies “religion” as one aspect of a personal world view, then atheists share in the same Constitutional rights to hold and express their views as do theists, deists, animists, or anyone else. (And, I note, that a number of U.S. jurists and laws have not yet caught up with the equal enforcement of that provision.)
Please note that I am NOT making the claim that atheism is the “belief in no god,” only indicating that religion, (addressing the positive assertion), shows up in the Constitution and that I see no reason why the rights established for persons holding religious views should be denied to persons asserting the negative.

You are now addressing an entirely different point and avoiding your claim that religion is a choice–your only point to which I objected.

You asserted that religion, (which I inferred was shorthand for any religious or spiritual belief), was a choice. You have not addressed how you can make that claim. While there are people for whom there does not appear to be any strong belief in many things, (some of whom may come to an informed decision that there is nothing beyond the material and others of whom may simply float along as nominal* believers), there are others for whom such belief–manifested in various ways–is core to their world view. Noting that you do not share such belief or that you do not understand how anyone can believe something for which you have no evidence is totally irrelevant to a claim that to hold such a belief is a choice.

For some undefined but very large number of people, belief in some person/power/whatever beyond the merely physical is at the core of their understanding of the world as they experience it. Barring material evidence, :smiley: you are simply mistaken to claim it is a choice.

*nominal in its correct meaning, not in the way it has been abused by another poster.

468

I was clarifying your quote, which inaccurately summarizes a point of view in order to ridicule it.

Religion is a choice in that we choose what we believe in, all of us. You, for example, choose to reject the powerful appeal that atheism has for many thoughtful people. If it appealed more to you, after your thoughtful consideration of all its attractiveness, which I’m sure you have surely given to the concept before rejecting it, as any thoughtful person would do, you would choose to accept atheism as your belief system (or as your system of non-belief). You have chosen otherwise. Are you asserting that you have no choice but to believe in God? That belief in God is not an outgrowth of your Free Will but has been chosen for you by some entity other than yourself? Please explain how believing in God is anything other than a willful choice of your conscious self.

469

Um, we seem to be having a problem with the definition of “choice” here. I offer up this paradox for Pitizens’ delectation: Both PRR and Tom are right, even though they appear to be saying precisely the opposite of each other.

One’s religious beliefs, and using that term generally enough to include atheism, agnosticism, impersonal panetheism, non-theistic humanism, etc., within it, are one’s reactions to the world as one perceives it. The atheist perceives a world in which there is no convincing evidence for the existence of a God, and reasonable inference that such evidence as does exist is either self-delusion by theists or credulous acceptance of myth and legend. He therefore reacts to the world by adopting an atheistic worldview. The theist is confronted with the looming reality of a deity that not only exists and is omni-powerful but which takes a special interest in him/her and indeed in every human being. And hence places a different weight on the testimony of others claiming to have encountered such a deity and on the quasi-historical quasi-legendary data regarding said deity.

If God appeared sitting atop PRR’s printer alongside his computer, surrounded by the Heavenly Host singing the Gloria from Bach’s B Minor Mass, and said to him, “Well, betcha you believe in Me now!” PRR is not so irrational as to reject the evidence of his senses – to the complete contrary. However, clearly God has not vouchsafed any knowledge of Himself sufficient to persuade PRR of His existence, and PRR hence makes the claim that by Occam’s Razor, it is a safe bet that He does not in fact exist. All the phenomena to which theists point in support of their belief, PRR can reasonably dismiss as erroneously understood.

Bottom line: the atheist has no choice, or more accurately a prescribed one: to found his worldview on what he reasonably understands to be superstitious claptrap, or to create a rational worldview that does not incorporate a deity he believes to be mythical. He reasonably chooses the latter.

But faced with the same choice, the theist, confronted with what he perceives as irrefutable evidence of the reality and personal interest of a deity, cannot dismiss the evidence the atheist considers superstition – or he is denying his own rationality. To fail to believe in an okapi when it’s the stuff of native legend is only reasonable; to fail to believe in one when it is brought to a zoological garden, exhibited, photographed, learned monographs prepared about its biology, is refusal to accept the evidence of one’s senses.

Neither is, properly speaking, a choice in any free-choice sense. It’s a choice mandated to a rational by the evidence at hand, and hence no real “choice” at all. Like Hobson’s customers, there is only one real option to select – the one that accords with the evidence one is working with.

470

Yeah, but what was there in that to explain why Ammonius Saccus was banned?

:stuck_out_tongue:

471

Though probably mostly on the side of PRR I refute that belief is purely a choice. Anyone undergoing mental illness may beleive rediculous things, even if they can intellectually recognise them to be false, and yet cannot chose to unbeleive those things.
An anarexic can beleive he is fat, even if he can perfectly well understand that this is false.
As someone who suffers from depression, I beleive I am worthless, even though I know for a fact that is not so. I cannot simply change my beleif at whim or even through the application of considerable willpower.

I think this is also true of some religious beleif, after all some such beleifs are very similar to mental illness or abberation or can be combined with such illness (considering here Psychopaths who do what they do because they beleive God tells them to do it).

So as I SEE IT many types of beleif cannot be turned off or on at will.

472

Although it is a bit disconcerting to be compared to psychopaths and whatnot, Bippy is right in principle. There are indeed people who profess to be Christian but who do not believe, and they can “turn it off” but only because it’s already off. For those of us whose faith is brought about by experience rather than expedience (e.g., to make good business contacts at church), not believing is simply not conceivable.

473

Piffle. I already noted why I used that shorthand phrase and I have done nothing to mock any belief or lack.
You sound like the theists who choose to be upset by references to the IPU or sky pixies.

As to your claim about “choice,” you are simply moving the goalposts to avoid addressing your original claim.

Sure, given a certain amount of irrefutable evidence, most thinking persons should be open to having their beliefs challenged so that they might even change. However, there is not irrefutable proof. To claim that religion is a “choice” so that it does not deserve protection under law because it is no different than choosing a profession or spouse or sports team is to ignore the reality that faith or its lack is an aspect of a person’s character.

If my wife dies, I may choose to re-marry or not. If I choose to re-marry, I may consider any number of women on whom I might inflict myself so that, eventually, some woman and I might choose to marry. I have no such possible choice regarding belief. I might choose to move from one denomination or another, based on some external forces, but I am not able to simply believe or not believe in God any more than you are capable of believing in any god.

At any rate, before you decided to assert that religious belief was a choice, this particular sidebar began with your claim that the very use of the word “religion” established favorable bias toward believers.
I pointed out that I do not believe that the Constitution actually does so, (and I believe my interpretation is supported by the nearly 50 year old case of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp), while conceding that there are still persons and laws within the U.S. that probably do perpetuate such discrimination.
However, you also made the claim that “hate speech” rules prohibit open discussion (or condemnation) of religion in the Great Debates Forum–and that is arrant nonsense. Numerous posters with negative opinions regarding religion or belief post their thoughts multiple times a day without ever suffering from staff intervention. (In fact, it seems to me that more believers than non-believers are attacked on a daily basis.) The only restriction is that if one calls another poster names in GD, that violation will probably provoke moderator action from either the one believer or two non-believers who moderate that Forum.

474

Pseudo, did you take up Tom’s challenge of “choosing” to believe in God? If not, that pretty much amounts to a concession of the point.

475

tom, thanks for the response.

476

Sure you have. Phrasing the question as “Is there a higher power? No” oversimplifies and therefore ridicules my position, making it easier to triumph and bwhahaha over.

You sound like you’re calling those theists silly special-pleaders. Are you?

Here is where we have differences. I prefer to hold out hope that I will someday persuade you to abandon Xianity. I refuse to believe that anyone is lost hopelessly in the slough of irrationality that is religion.

I can believe in God if I choose. I’ve thought it over and chosen not to. WHat’s so hard for you to understand? And for that matter, let’s return, shall we, to the entire business of religious conversions, which you dismissed categorically a few posts back. Are proselytizers offending you when they peddle their labels of hogwash? If so, I wish you’d turn some of your energy towards persuading them that religion is not a choice, not me. I’m not really doing very much to draw you to atheism, am ? But those folks who try to persuade me to embrace Jesus every morning on the subway are a big pain in my butt, and I think you’d do well to try your luck persuading them to STFU already.

Let’s review some of my more arrant nonsense. My entire objection to your less-than-even-handed moderating of badchad, as I recall, stemmed from your permitting Polycarp a contentious and aggrieved tone, containing some terms of personal abuse, that you came down on his adversary for. Indeed, my argument-- which you would need to go back to the threads you’ve already cited for my benefit (and which I haven’t re-read, preferring not to get into a disputation of the “you-said-then-he-said” sort with you, as I think a reading of the entire thread(s) will support my point to those who are willing to be so persuaded, and not, to those unwilling)–is that an atheist mod behaving with the same degree of bias as you have and exercising the same recklessness in acting on it probably would have busted Poly and left badchad alone.My memory is that your sympathy with Poly’s position probably influenced your moderation more than any objective application of the Forum rules, which are vague enough to make this a judgment call, your judgment being clearly biased by your participation in that thread. Understandable, but please dont piss on me and tell me it’s raining. No doubt, it’s convenient for you to Mod threads that youre already reading anyway, rather than ask another Mod to step in and make some judgment calls where your judgment may be impaired, but it’s not always convenient to be judicious. In a larger sense, that’s the argument the US makes in enforcing equal protection laws: It’s a bit of a nuisance, if not impossible, to enforce these fairly but what the hell, most Americans are Xian so we’ll just let the marketplace of public opinion sort the tricky stuff out–if in practice we’re supporting a bias towards Xianity, who’s bothered by that? A couple of wogs and atheists? Fuck them, so long as the majority supports our position.

Congratulations. The majority supports yours, too, which is why I’m content simply registering my position with no desire to argue the point beyond asserting it.

477

Sorry, I don’t take requests. I’ve already examined the evidence and have already made my choice. This isn’t to say I can’t change my mind again–I remain open to any evidence you wish to present me with–but I haven’t seen any so far, and my position remains “You got nothin’.”

478

So in other words, you cannot choose to believe.

479

I could, I suppose, but for now I don’t.

Is English your first language?

480

Do you realize how silly you appear to be attempting to portray yourself? I have not “triumphed” over non-belief, or even you, particularly. There is no statement that I have ever posted that could be considered a “bwhahaha” claim directed toward those persons who have no belief in the spiritual, simply for their lack of belief. The statement containing the phrase at which you are so aggrieved was part of my assertion that atheists should (and I believe do) have the same rights as theists regarding speech in this country and was employed simply to keep the overall paragraph short while remaining understandable.

I am very definitely saying that those theists who get offended at such flip phrases are choosing to display an excess of sensitivity. I have never objected to someone referring to my beliefs by alluding to imaginary beings. I just do not think that getting upset over someone else’s beliefs about my beliefs is worth my time or energy and I have generally found such irritation to be puzzling. Life is too short to get upset over minor stuff.

I am not sure that you even understand what belief is. Belief is not the expression of verisimilitude or accepting the reality of elves and orcs while reading Tolkien. Based on everything you have posted, (especially noting the vehemence with which you express it), the idea that you could “choose” to believe in God is simply silly and you appear to be making the claim for the sole purpose of holding desperately onto your bad choice of words, above.

As to proselytizers, they fall into two general categories: (1) idiots like Jack Chick who simply think that saying magic words will actually change a person’s whole outlook on life and (2) persons who hope to appeal to the life experiences of a person they meet, describing a world-view which will resonate with the person to be converted. You actually fall into the second category, appealing to what you perceive to be humanity’s “rational” characteristics, hoping to demonstrate that there is no reason for belief in anything beyond the material. People who possess and want to share belief generally attempt to describe their own experiences in life, hoping that their audience will recognize congruent situations in their own lives and begin to consider the possibility that what the proselytizer has experienced and come to believe has a validity and reality that they might share. Is there a choice in persuing that exploration? Sure. But in the end, the resonance arises within the person separate from the act of volition. This board has had numerous testimonies from persons who have said that they wished to believe, but simply could not do it (and a few others who have said they were led to certain beliefs against their will). Belief is, ultimately, rooted in one’s experiences and are not simple acts of volition.
When badchad claims to have converted a believer to non-belief, he has done so by portraying the world in a way that his audience came to a belief that his world-view was valid. If it was nothing more than logic and choice, badchad should have been able to convert dozens of people. (Perhaps fewer on this board, given that manyu of his arguments are based in ignorance and bad logic. His odd games have no appeal for me, although there have been some more intelligent spokespersons for unbelief who have challenged my own world views.) You fail to draw me to atheism for much the same reason: no presentation of a world view that I recognize as “real” (along with occasional bad logic).

(The folks you meet in the subway are of the Jack Chick variety and I have no desire to waste my time attacking their invincible ignorance. They are as likely to consider me damned as they are to consider you damned and I have better things to do with my life than worry about them.)

I really have no idea what you are talking about. You have made a dozen or more charges in at least two threads that I have done terrible things, but you have never bothered to provide a citation for even a single instance of my terrible behavior, despite multiple other posters requesting you do so. I figure you simply misread something (as you did in the quote that opened this post) and you now have an idée fixe you can’t release despite the fact that it was based on a simple misinterpretation and has no basis in reality.