@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip;173873 wrote:No offense, friend, but this seems like less of a philosophical break-down of an argument and like more of a series of unjustified assertions. I might agree with you on every count, but lets back up our claims with justification, eh? Just as in the case of the religious believer, saying that a thing is so does not make it so.
No offense taken! Here's the thing, though. Ethics cannot be caught in a net, in my opinion. There is simply a limit to what can be proven. I don't see how proof is more than effective persuasion. The ideas we hold true are for us while they are held true the intelligible structure of our experience.
I don't have any proof or need of any God, as this God would just be, for me, a mere concept, a mere proposition. I think concepts, for all their glory, can distract us from the beauty available in sensation and emotion.
What does the truth or falsity of the God proposition really mean? I for one do not believe in Hell, Heaven, or Afterlife. This makes a difference. yes. So in this case, I am an "atheist." But atheism is associated with materialism, whether it should be or not. And I think materialism is a much cruder superstition than theism. Why? Because sensation and emotion are irreducible. They just aren't concept. They are something else. And I can't write them exactly for that reason. But I can say that you are seeing black on white as you read this sentence. But I can't prove that. Is that experience of "black on white" reducible to concept, just because concept can point your awareness to it? Concept/language is just one layer of experience, in my opinion, and we can get so absorbed in this thought-layer of experience, that we forget to notice the raw "is-ness" of human experience. It doesn't matter if we believe or don't believe in "God," as far as this "is-ness" goes. Experience just is. Now Heaven and Hell are concepts, in my opinion, and they are enemies of living in and making the most of
this world. At least for me. I do value dialectic. But I also value that which dialectic cannot touch. Lacan would call it the Real which resists symbolization.
Great talking to you & I wish you well.