Philosophers have not shown, but surely some have said, that speech has power. But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? This is action at a distance, or worse, magic and sorcery, and without a viable theory to explain how speech can manipulate matter that’s the kind of superstition it shall remain. — NOS4A2

Yet here you are, talking relying on the power of speech.

But then again, hot air lifts baloons!

But instead you attempt to demonstrate that it is something you know syllogistically. And so, it becomes something to be examined by reason not religion, — Fooloso4

Sure.
With the caveat, of course, that I can only asses the validity of religious arguments, not their soundness. The soundness of religious arguments is a grey area to me.

Athiest have been good to me and religious people too, l have also seen a fair amount of assholes from both sides likewise.

Let's stop debating generalizing atheists and religious people. — Wittgenstein

No, that's backwards.

Terms like "theist" and "atheist" are defined similarly as, say, geometric shapes, ie. "in advance". We learn that, for example, a square is "a regular quadrilateral, which means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90-degree angles)". That's how we recognize that the black and white fields on a chess board are squares.

One doesn't derive the meaning of the term "theist" based on generalizing what self-professed Tom Theist, Dick Theist, and Harry Theist have in common, but on an abstract definition that is independent of Tom, Dick, and Harry. And similar for "atheist", "religious", and so on.

Like in the Seinfeld example mentioned above:
But you're a cashier!

The unspoken part we have to infer is:
You're a cashier, which is a lowly job not deserving respect, therefore, you're in no position to reject a romantic relationship with me on account that you don't respect my stand-up comedy act.

Because they'd be excommunicated for speaking such blasphemy? — praxis

No, because I don't want trouble.

What books? If you're going to make claims like this you should be able to back them up.

Here's something from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CHAPTER ONE

MAN'S CAPACITY FOR GOD

I. The Desire for God

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1

/.../

29 But this "intimate and vital bond of man to God" (GS 19 # 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4

30 "Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice."5 Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, "an upright heart", as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P9.HTM

Note: It says "man's capacity for God". You can infer from the above claims, as proselytizers do in their conversations with people, that "you have the capacity to know the truth, God" and that you need to rise above your biases (which are fueled by your revolt against evil in the world, the occasional indifference of the religious, etc.)

II. Ways of Coming to Know God

31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. the soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",9 can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".10

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PA.HTM

to live sustainably — Xtrix

I fear it's too late, that we're past the tipping point anyway.

Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. — Xtrix

Part of the ecological skepticism here is that these government interventions and incentives aren't effective. Laws are passed, funds are provided, projects are designed, but nothing really happens and the money somehow vanishes.


We have a referendum coming up. It's about a law proposed by the right-wing government which would allow building closer to bodies of water, thus further reducing areas along the bodies of water, those areas being vital for the filtration of water and the natural production of drinking water. The government is now painting the opposition as "You're against clean drinking water!" But as it is, people prefer right-wing politics.

We don't want the state to appear undemocratic now, do we? That would be so socialist. So we use fancy terms we don't mean.

If their arguments are vacuous then they would be invalid and or unsound no? — Janus

Or simply not to your liking, but possibly still valid and sound.
I've never seen the term "vacuous" in literature about logic. It sounds more like a Jane Austen word, a haughty derision.

I think the point about the ad hominem fallacy is that it consists in assuming that someone's arguments are invalid or unsound or vacuous without examining their actual arguments.

Sure.

What criteria should terminate Why? — Cheshire

The rotting of teeth, the passing of time. Ie. real circumstances, the real-life context of asking Why?
As in, "You ask Why?, while your teeth rot."

Pointing out to people, or to oneself, that life goes on, passes by, even as one is asking one's Why? should make a normal, conscientious person cease asking it, and focus on the task at hand.

I want to see how they actually hold up against life's hardships, regardless of whether they are theists, atheists, or whatever. I want to take them to Rhodes, to see how they jump there.
— baker

that there was some thinking on the horizon — Kenosha Kid

Unfortunately for theorists, this topic requires some real examples, to wit:

When I got home a friend asked if I'm religious now. I replied sincerely: fuck off.
— Christoffer

Not that I wished this upon you, but it would be more relevant for the OP topic to see your reaction and your attitude toward life if the accident would leave you permanently and severely disabled. If you could still be so cheerfully saying that life is meanigless. — baker

but, no, despite it being pointed out to you twice, you're still blocked by a need to be hostile, while complaining that the thread is blocked by the hostility of others.

Baffled, but I guess you never promised to make sense.

When in Rome!

Who said that? — praxis

I can't post their real names. But I'm thinking of several religious people who have advised me on religious choice in just this way, and it's also a theme I've found in some religious books. The idea that one should "look within, honestly, without bias, and then one will see religious/spiritual truth" is hardly revolutionary.

Oh, the daggers and stings!

Many countries claim freedom of speech and press and yet censor freespeech. — Protagoras

Because the government's freedom of speech trumps your freedom of speech.

So I need a printing press to have free speech?

Yes, or pen and paper, as the case may be.

t's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. — Xtrix

You keep presenting it that way, though, such as here:

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix

What I object to is the emphasis. — Xtrix

I think you've read something into my posts that isn't there, though. Perhaps we need to talk more.

If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. — Xtrix

Of course. Much of what goes on nowadays under "caring for the planet" is nonsense, usually intended to get us to buy the advertiser's product or service. It's also dangerous because it can create in people a false sense of accomplishment and contribution -- "Look, I have a cloth shopping bag, I'm protecting the environment!"

I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual.

(I'm in Europe. On national televisions here, there are many documentaries on the theme of skepticism about mainstream approaches to ecology; just last week, there was one titled "The green lie". But most of them are not in English, and not readily available online, so I can't refer to them.)

Anyone with the money to posses a printing press (or other media outlet) has "freedom of the press". And this is also pretty much the extent of the meaning of "freedom of the press".

I'm interested in the phenomenon of resilience. While there is quite a bit of recent research in psychology about resilience, I find it to be too general and too abstract to be useful, and I'm more interested in its metaphysical underpinnings, if there are any. What is it that a resilient person believes about the Universe and their place in it, so as to be able to handle life's hardships resiliently? Is it possible to teach and learn this? If yes, how?

I haven't claimed to figure anything out. I've put forth no meaning of my own. — Kenosha Kid

But you speak with great confidence. This is enough of a clue.

Freespeech is in no way similiar to having a door on your house.
A conversation is not a private house. — Protagoras

Owning a media outlet is similar to owning a house. You don't let just anyone in.

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix

In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy.

I do believe things start at the individual person, and that if enough people do it, it can become governmental policy and other high-level actions or at least create a socio-economic environment in which those policies make sense and become actionable.

A conscientious use of food and clothing (where it's simply about buying carefully and using thoroughly, I'm not talking about composting and recycling), for example, would force a change in some business policies and processes, simply because of the change to the demand for products. It seems to me that this would be more effective than trying to get big business to change its ways by other means, such as through government incentives for "green" industry.

Do you think restricting speech needs to be justified? — Pinprick

Do you think restricting who can enter your home needs to be justified?

So you refuse to learn?
*sigh*

On the other hand, a foxhole denotes an active war context in which the cortisol response would make the notion of "happy" almost satirical in a neurotypical person. — Cheshire

For centuries, it was expected of soldiers to have courage under fire, hence the phrase.

And in general, cowardice has always been looked down upon. Well, until relatively recently, when it seems that the psychologically "normal" thing to do is to fall apart under pressure, or else be branded as a psychopath.

Sorry, that it's no loss to an atheist/physicalist that we have no teleological meaning. — Kenosha Kid

Of course. But what I see in this is braggartry. When people say or imply in any way that they "have it all figured out", I want to see how they actually hold up against life's hardships, regardless of whether they are theists, atheists, or whatever. I want to take them to Rhodes, to see how they jump there.

I'm doing no such thing. Everyone is free to try to take the conversation in an on-topic direction, although no one is obliged to follow them. I couldn't tempt WF to go my way, but there's nothing stopping you, fill your boots. Since my and WF's conversation died ages ago, the obvious blocker is that you're spending your time talking to me about my conversation instead of having yours. — Kenosha Kid

You're creating a hostile discussion environment that is not conducive to discussing the topics I want to discuss.
At the same time, what the vocal antireligionists are saying are clues for the topics I do want to discuss.
Hm.

One imagines that the theist - for all his inventions of sky daddies and karmic mysteries - has a lack of imagination so severe that he has to invent a whole 'mythos' to cover over their total inability to recognize 'meaning' seeping through every pore of the universe without all that trash. Theism is and will always be simply a hatred of the world, motivated by a deep existential impotence, projected outward as a defense mechanism, and then demanded of everyone else on pain of suffering that same complete failure of imagination as they have. — StreetlightX

For all my dislike of religion in general, I don't believe the above.

If you're a wuss, you'll be a wuss, with or without religion. And religion can certainly make you into even more of a wuss. But it doesn't turn a confident man into a wuss. And it can't help a wuss to stop being a wuss.

I often find myself wanting to have a proper conversation with Wayfarer, but it's impossible because of all the deprecatory interjections from some other posters, and those who insist on keeping the discussion at a superficial level.

My description is limited to the constraints in understanding how different ideas of life's meaning appear to different people. — Kenosha Kid

Of course.

I'm hardly painting him as a placard-waving, abortionist-murdering, homophobe who loves his guns

You're blocking the conversation from getting anywhere, it never develops into the directions I want it to go in.

just for pointing out that the only meaning he recognises isn't worth a damn to many of us.

The implication being that ...?

I think they believe that it's impossible to find meaning for yourself and that it must be spoon-fed to us by some robed authority figure. — praxis

This is a strawman.

It's not actually possible to "find meaning for yourself", although it's possible, and fairly common, not to acknowledge one's sources.

Even the most extreme individualist is still a person who has read what other people have written, who has listened to other people, and then incorporated bits of that into his own philosophy. As such, he did not "find meaning for himself". Just like one cannot be self-sufficient in terms of breathable air and food, so one cannot be self-sufficient in terms of one's worldview.

The individualism you speak so highly of is popular in religious and areligious circles alike. The sentence of yours I'm quoting is actually the kind of thing I've heard from religious people as well, when they say things like, "Think for yourself, look into various religions and then objectively, without bias, decide for yourself which one is the right one." This is an action that would require epistemic autonomy, which is impossible!!

Your attitude is not conducive to meaningful communication.

Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke. — T Clark

I wasn't joking, I replied to your OP request. I thought about what resources could be useful for learning about the topic you raised, and I posted some links to them. Have you read them?

I look around society and I see a very unnatural state. For example, I see a drive to force almost against our will different segments of society, different groups, different biologies, different backgrounds, together in a way which, compared to a historical sense, seems very forced, engineered, calculated, planned and ultimately is unnatural in that historical sense. — JohnLocke

Sure, but the class/caste/segregation system is still well and alive, it's just more subtle.

The egalitarianism that is officially pushed on us is illusory, and a well-adjusted person knows this. People still operate out of a class/caste/segregation mentality and are expected to do so, it's just not politically correct to admit to it.

Is this just petty rhetoric? The notion there is a religious alignment that makes people "happy" under life and death circumstances is absurd. — Cheshire

It's not a new idea. The ancient Stoics, for example, set out to be happy and content, regardless of circumstances.

Whereas you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the idea that a meaning derived from a teleological creator isn't worth a damn outside of a creationist framework, that other meanings that are worth a damn in other frameworks are actually the weightier ones in those frameworks. No one's craving a higher purpose from a non-existent entity, it's not that conceptually difficult. — Kenosha Kid

You're not being fair. Wayfarer is a rare religious/spiritual person with whom it is actually possible to communicate. While you're painting him as the standard Southern redneck fundie.

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss.
— Kenosha Kid

That's correct, and I stand by that. — Wayfarer

Like I said before, you're optimistic and idealistic ...

I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. — Xtrix

Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?

We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?

It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources.

Meanwhile: catching fish and releasing them is arguably more brutal but rarely condemned. — IanBlain

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion.

Jeesus, some people here are just trying to help you, as per your OP request. Not to criticize you.

I’m curious about what prompted you to start this thread, then. Struggling to see a point. — Wayfarer

An areligious person was bragging about the benefits of their areligious stance, and I wonder if such people can still brag like that once life gets hard.

What evidence do you have for that curious claim? — Tom Storm

It's my own experience, and the experience of many seekers who turn to religion when they are facing hard times. Existential despair can be a powerful motivator.

I was an atheist when I was broke (years ago) and had to shelter in phone boxes at night to stay dry. My situation made no difference. You are either convinced of something or not convinced of something.

It's hard to objectively measure hardship and suffering to begin with. One person's rock bottom might be another's "still manageable". But the point is that they both have a notion of "fallen on hard times", even though they differ in what exactly that means in practical terms (for one, it might be living in a one-room apartment, for another, sheltering in phone boxes).

You also made the claim that people lose their religion when life goes bad.

I only said that some people lose their religion when life goes bad, that I have perceived a trend.

So is it the case that you think people's beliefs are held in place by their situation?

For some people, they seem to be. There are many factors to consider.

But he says that philosophy seeks that meaning through understanding, not through mere belief, although that is a distinction I guess won't get any traction here. — Wayfarer

It doesn't get much traction in religious/spiritual settings either.

The point about any kind of philosophical hermenuetic is to try and discern what factor, if anything, they are pointing at, so as to disclose a larger truth.

Indeed, a self-respecting philosophizer shouldn't read philosophy books or converse on philosophy discussion forums simply because he's bored or can't sleep.

That depends on what is at stake. If we're simply material aggregates and death is the end, then nothing is at stake. But if there is a higher purpose, and we don't see it, then we've missed the point. And it's a very important point to miss. — Wayfarer

Only on the condition that there is rebirth/reincarnation.
Any type of "higher meaning" stands and falls with rebirth/reincarnation. If there's no rebirth/reincarnation, then nothing is lost if a person doesn't pursue some "higher meaning".

But overall, the erosion of the sense of meaning, the loss of the sense of mankind having a meaningful place in the Cosmos, has been a major theme in modern culture, expressed in countless works of philosophy, drama, art and literature. — Wayfarer

Of course. I think this loss of meaning goes hand and hand with the increase of material wellbeing, or at least with the enormous emphasis on it that is evident in modern times.

I don't think it's necessary to be religious to live a meaningful life, but as a consequence of my own search, I interpret religious ideas as expressions of mankind's search for meaning or of the relationship of the human and the Cosmos. Ultimately the major religious figures achieve a kind of cosmic identity, in more than simply a symbolic sense.

Acknowledging one's sources is an immediate manner of bringing man's relationship with the Cosmos to one's awareness.

By orientating our understanding in the light of theirs, we are able to realise something similar.

I don't know. I've never had a single experience with religious/spiritual people or their texts that I would consider positive or encouraging. Of course, they're all eager to blame me, but I take this eagerness as a sign that they have nothing to offer, or that I'm simply a lesser being who is simply out of their league and would only waste her time trying to understand them.

My primary reasons for skepticism about religion/spirituality are the low quality of interpersonal communication and their caveat emptor attitude. By being that way, they make themselves irrelevant to me, and I can sustain interest in them only if I myself, too, engage in the sort of character assassination against myself that they enact against me.

I don't know what you mean. Hey, wait a minute!!! Isn't calling me "naive" an ad hominem argument!!! You did this on purpose didn't you?

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something.
— baker

I don't know what this means either.

Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation.
— baker

I'm trying to figure out whether this is an ad hominem argument too. I think it is. Boy. This is fun. — T Clark

I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.

Here's a nice one:

https://books.google.si/books?id=0fVADwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=sl#v=onepage&q&f=false