The issue is that beliefs cause harm to others. When, for instance Christians seek to change legislation - eg, abortion law, euthanasia, creation science in schools, climate science denial - you name it - and when they are supporting political candidates, they are justifying these high impact changes on the basis of an unproven entity. — Tom Storm

It seems more likely to me that the religious references to or implications of God are merely part of a political strategy, and not a genuine expression of belief. This strategy is fuelled by the constitutional freedom of religion and the constitutional demand for respect for religion. The religious have here an ace that the non-religious don't have. If you oppose what they say, they can accuse you of denying them their constitutional freedom of religion. This is how they can silence you, which was their goal all along. This is how the secular constitution is shooting secular people in the foot -- or more like, in the head.

Indeed. How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? What can you not justify using an appeal to faith? It seems very weak to me. — Tom Storm

Don't forget that many people conflate faith, belief, and knowledge; they have little or no sense of perspective, subjectivity, or of the dichotomy of facts vs. opinions. (This is also why scientism can flourish among secular people, as witnessed in the covid vaccine hysteria.)
They have no training in criticial thinking (or at least none that would stick.) They reason in an entirely different way than someone who has had some of such training.

I still can't quite understand what the idea of god is for except as a debating subject.

That's because you're not pugilistic enough. The idea of God has proven to be a very effective tool for fucking with people's minds, and thus render them silent, incompetent, or irrelevant.

People are taken in by cheap Chinese products and other benefits of economic cooperation — Apollodorus

"Taken in"?
So China is a magician or something?

People are "taken in" by their own greed. If they wouldn't be so greedy, they wouldn't settle for buying cheap low quality export stuff (from China or anywhere else).

The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable. — Tzeentch

In a desperate quest for safety and meaning.

Aporia seems the natural outcome of philosophical discussion; silence follows. — Banno

It's like aphasia: one opens one's mouth, and nothing comes out.

In what circumstances would it be rational to accept one's depression or anxiety? — Shawn

What do you mean by "accept" here?

And another culinary one: pudding.

I'd found, after the first twenty-odd years of unbelief, that it's more profitable to argue with (religious) theism which exists than to argue against gods which do not. Thus, atheism matured into antitheism, and my career in freethought became even freer, a vocation; these last decades, theism can be shown to be not true, and the rest follows. — 180 Proof

But the real question is, Are you getting payed for your antitheism? Does it rake in money for you?

Thus, it is irrelevant whether God can create contradictions, we would not perceive them. — SolarWind

Indeed. No matter how much one might try, one couldn't perceive a square circle, even if there was one.

Can we think about some kind of practice that, if practiced, would favour better relationships? — Angelo

Yes: the practice of minding one's own business.

The majority of people trouble comes from people sticking their nose into things that are none of their business and from demanding from other people what they are unable or unwilling to give.

Minding one's own business doesn't necessarily mean solitude or isolation; although it entails some of that as well. It means that one interacts with others on the grounds of common and well thought through interests. Philosophy can help one clarify one's thoughts, esp. analytic philosophy.

That part of the quote kinda puzzles me too, but I think he just means that you're not likely to code switch from French to German and vice versa while speaking about bread. I think anyway. — StreetlightX

I wonder about this one too. We'd need someone who is fluent in French. I know Germans tend to associate Brot with hard work and basic necessities (which is evident in the German idioms with Brot), but do the French do so as well?


Unless the difference is in fact primarily culinary, e.g.:

German bread is usually made from the darker, less refined types of flour, often even wholegrain. Beside the wheat flour the rye flour is often added to the dough. There are also pure rye kinds of bread. Typical French bread is usually yeast raised, while German is sourdough. In consequence German bread is darker, has more flavour, it is also longer edible. In France bread is usually eaten as the add-on with meals, broken to pieces while eaten. In Germany it is more often a base of a meal, cut into slices and made into open-face sandwiches.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-difference-between-French-bread-and-German-bread

Except for machines, which only have access to words, but do a fairly good job of translating these days. — Marchesk

That depends on what type of text one is trying to machine translate.
Poetry, for example, is generally hard to render equivalently into a different language. Technical texts, not so much.

I'm still unclear on this. Are the different ways of meaning simply different attitudes by the speakers of different languages toward the words/meanings of their respective languages? Or a different attitude towards the signified objects? Or something else? — Luke

This is best illustrated by and explained with examples, but for this, all the participants need to be fluent enough in the languages compared. It's a phenomenon that multilingual people can easily understand, but otherwise, it's tedious to explain.

But why boycott a particular country?
Why not focus on self-sufficiency?

Boycotting a particular country is like running away from danger, but not necessarily running to safety.
What we want is safety, so we should run toward safety, not merely away from danger. Self-sufficiency seems like the best practice for attaining (as much) safety (as possible).

I'm so glad you are obedient. I would hate to think you had ideas of your own. — Tom Storm

Nonsense. One of the most important things to know in life is to know one's place. It's amazing how much trouble one avoids that way. There's just no use in forcing oneself upon a culture or social group that doesn't want one.

You seem to be operating under the notion that people who beieve in God have arrived at belief in God or at claims about God via an abstract logical reasoning (or even by empirical investigation), in a bottom-up manner, so to speak.

But this isn't how actual religious theists operate. They operate from the assumption of divine revelation, ie. top-down.

For theists, God reveals himself; it's not the case that man would discover God on his own, without God's revelation.

It doesn't matter whether you believe any of this; but it is a matter of valid reasoning about God. Otherwise, you're just busying yourself with the god of philosophers, a fiction.

The thread is here because I have the gut feeling that there must be something wrong with the argument in the OP; it's just too obvious. But I don't see what the eror is. — Banno

The error is that you invented the argument in the OP. It's not part of any existing theistic religion.

Why is it a true statement?
— Daniel
Because I say. — Banno

There you go. Your say-so doesn't make a statement true.

No, I'm saying nothing can be reasonably said about god. — Banno

Of course it can, provided one doesn't just invent things about God.

1. I want to love my enemy. So far, no joy. I have made some headway, but there's a long way to go.
2. I want my opinion to leave me the fuck alone. I'm better. I find it is no longer my master.
3. I want to not want. Let's see how I can do with that. LOL! — James Riley

A crash course in Buddhism usually quickly results in a crash.

I would say I didn't start getting productive till I was 40 — Tom Storm

Absolutely. I hope the trend continues for me. I can tell that I don't have as much sheer physical strength as I used to (e.g. I can't lift as much as I used to or run as fast), but I have more endurance and it now feels natural to approach large projects little by little and complete them.

There's a reason why marathon runners are typically older than 100 meter sprinters.

Statistics bears it out. Educated, wealthy people are more likely to be atheists. — frank

Sure. But I would like to see longitudinal and developmental studies of this phenomenon.

It seems to me that when people start out poor and religious, they sometimes end up well-off and atheist. In some cases, religion is vital for propelling people forward, but once a measure of material wealth and wellbeing is achieved, religion takes a backseat.

Are educated, wealthy people more likely to be atheists because they are educated and wealthy; or are they educated and wealthy because they are atheists?

↪baker I missed (E)...? — Banno

Here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/562253

If god supports Trump, I'm joining the rebellion.

I mean seriously. How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life????

But we might add, if it is so pointless, why are you both here? There are plenty of folk who agree with you, and hence do not post here.

Is it inconsistency, or incontinence? — Banno

Processing of old traumas, efforts to gain a pychological distance from religion (via controlled exposure and desensitization).

Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.

Ought we do as he says? — Banno

Irrelevant example, a fictional scenario, because the moral decision depends entirely on the situation being real, factual.

It's not possible to make meaningful moral decisions in fictional scenarios. (Although fictional scenarios are conducive to playing out one's fantasies.) Moral decisions require that there exist actual options to act on, in the real world. Fictional scenarios don't provide those.

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief) — Banno

Next to the aforementioned E option, I can think of another one:

F) arriving at the belief that if God exist, God is [insert set of particular characteristics].


I believe that if God exists, God is a Trumpista (and everything that comes with that).
How else do we explain that a certain person has just so much luck, so much is going his way, he always comes out on top? At some point, divine protection seems like the only plausible explanation left.

Many Christians, for instance, maintain that God is maximally powerful but he cannot do the logically incomprehensible. God cannot make bachelors married men, for example. — Tom Storm

Yes, he can. To wit: Jesus, the eternal bachelor, to whom so many Catholic nuns are married.

Two parallels intersect in infinity ....

Do you think that there is no such thing as bad art? — Pfhorrest

It's not my place to think such things, as I am not a member of the elite who decides about such things.

Before you seemed to be saying that only the art elite is capable of making such distinctions when you wrote, "Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not." Now you're saying that any school child (provided they're schooled in Europe) knows the difference.

Can you resolve this apparent contradition? — praxis

Certainly. At least up until some 30 years ago, children were typically taught to distinguish between proper art and that which is not proper art. This knowledge, however, has to go hand in hand with knowing one's place in society, and knowing whether one is in the position to speak on a topic or not.

Hm. I guess this is hard to explain to an egalitarian/democrat. I'll put it this way: If you belong to the (lower) middle class and lower, it is, by old European standards, inappropriate for you to go to a classical music concert. Such art is simply considered to be out of your league and you're just not appropriate for it. It's completely irrelevant how much you might like it or how much you might know about it. You must know your place. If a member of the elite has a particularly charitable day, they might tell you that your time would be better spent in other pursuits, otherwise, they'll just frown upon you.

For Benjamin, the differences between languages are, at base, differences between how words mean. That is, what any one expression means can remain identical between languages, but what differs between them is 'how' a particular language goes about "meaning" (taken as a verb).
— StreetlightX

I'm not sure if I agree with this. — T Clark

This is probably most evident in idioms, as it is often misleading to translate them word-for-word.

For example the English idiom bread and butter ('a person's livelihood or main source of income'; or
used in reference to something everyday or ordinary) doesn't automatically translate into the German Brot und Butter, for German has no such idiom with this meaning.

Further example (please add your own):

Greek aletheia: the opposite of lethe 'oblivion', where in English, we would say truth, factuality, reality. For the Greeks, when they spoke of truth, reality, they thought of it in terms of absence of oblivion, while in English, there is no such connotation.

And this is supposed to be a consolation?! A handful of yuppies making a wee bit less money than another bunch of yuppies??!

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)

Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore. — Banno

You need to add E:

E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot).

This is a possible natural, organic consequence of having thought and read and discussed about the issue a lot, from different perspectives.

If you see the opposite, that people are disenfranchised and losing hope, losing their health insurance and job security
you
are
losing. — frank

Surely that is their own fault, not atheism's.

If you're an atheist and you're doing well in life, you've got atheism to thank for that, right?
And if you're an atheist and you're not doing so well in life, you've got only yourself to blame for that (or your mental illness), correct?

but surely incorrigibility isn't a virtue. — jorndoe

Sure it can be, esp. when framed as self-confidence and constancy.

Right. So indoctrination works. (y) And, taken as a methodology, indoctrination doesn't differentiate the target faiths, any will do, and it works just the same. — jorndoe

It's not simply indoctrination.
Like I said elsewhere:

Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.

The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552097 — https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552097

In Buddhism on the contrary, they're regarded as strengths — Ross Campbell

Reference?

But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical. — Banno

Duh. Of course. You must bear in mind that theists typically believe that atheists are stupid and that they should be convinced by the proselytizing arguments put forward by the theists. (Imagine yourself being patronizingly patted on the top of your head everytime a proselytizing theist puts forward an argument in favor of God. Of course, that same theist did not arrive at his belief in God by considering the arguments he wants you to consider!)

And -- "in praise of atheism"?? Are you preaching to the choir? Are you arguing that atheism is evolutionarily advantageous, more conducive to survival and happiness? You'd need to show that the poor God believers are kept poor by their God belief.

I disagree completely. It could even just be pinned to their mother’s refrigerator and it would still be art. That says nothing, however, above the quality of it as art, whether it is good art, good at doing what art is to do. Even if it fails miserably at doing what art should do, it’s still art; it’s just bad art. — Pfhorrest

You're an American, aren't you? If you were raised in Europe, you'd learn early on to distinguish between art and mere craft (and kitsch).

Arguments for the existence of god — Banno

Epic fail at the onset.

People who believe in God typically don't do so on the grunds of some philosophical arguments. Instead, they were born and raised to believe in God, and everything else follows from there.

Only the relatively few philosophers who profess to believe in God do so on the grounds of some philosophical arguments. However, these philosopher-theists do not believe in the same God as the religious theists do; philosopher-theists believe in a God of their own making, on their own terms -- they believe in the God of philosophers. For all practical intents and purposes, philosopher-theists should not be counted as proper theists; because from the regular monotheistic perspective, they are still atheists.

All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

I expect that what people say should be logical. Silly me.
By now, I know better than to point it out to them (heaven forbid pointing out a logical fallacy!). It just makes for such tedious communication ...

Person: "If you agree with a part of the contract, you must agree with the whole contract."
Baker: *sigh* *silence*

Although the way I would phrase more or less the same idea is that “framing” something makes it art: presenting it to an audience for their consideration, making it the content of a communicative act. It’s not so much it being in any particular place that makes it art, except inasmuch as being somewhere indicates that it is being used as art, and it’s being used as art that makes something art, just like being used as a chair makes something a chair. — Pfhorrest

Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not.

You could frame a painting done by a naive artist, put it into a fancy gallery, and it still wouldn't be art proper.

You sound bitter. — Tom Storm

*hrmph*

I won't ask who you are thinking of. I'll bet you there's self loathing, poor interpersonal relationships, loneliness and substance abuse, just for starters. There almost always is.

Not at all, not in the ones I'm thinking of.
For the older ones, their religiosity probably plays a major part.
The younger ones (now in their 20's, 30's) were raised to "believe in themselves", to "follow their dreams".

Read again what I said.