The pinko philistines would ban Jesus fer’sher.

So shun all outer & inner authority and live by the bear necessities of life. Oh no, I feel a song coming on...

This is the only one I caught site of that was kinda funny, so you’re not missing anything.

If God were immaterial we would not know of God's existence because God would be completely undetectable.
— praxis

That's merely an assumption, not a logical truth or an empirically decidable claim. — Janus

It is logical to conclude that nothing (no material existence) is undetectable because nothing can't produce sound waves, reflect light, etc. Also, if it's not an empirically decidable claim then it is irrefutable. :smile:

And the medium is cheese. This is rationally irrefutable.

This is a logical contradiction since God is understood to be an immaterial being. — Janus

If God were immaterial we would not now of Gods existence because God would be completely undetectable.

God is made of cheese.

religious belief is not rationally refutable — Janus

So if I contrive some silly religion no one can rationally refute it?

You apparently rely heavily on authority figures like Russell so perhaps you’re a good candidate for religiosity and not so inclined to think for yourself.

I was guessing, not reporting… oh, okay.

Maybe I can answer for you. You’re not religious because you have no faith in any religious doctrine or religious authorities that you know of.

Because I am not religious. Why would I be? Presumably you think that if someone reasons to the conclusion God exists, they will then think 'well, I better go join a religion'. Why would I do that? How does one get from 'God exists' to 'the bible is correct about everything' or 'the Koran is correct about everything'?? Maybe they are or one of them is - but it is not implied by the argument on whose basis I believe in God. — Bartricks

You don’t need to presume what I think in order to answer what I asked. That you can’t answer suggests that you don’t understand the subject matter well enough to formulate an answer beyond I’m not religious because I’m not religious.

And faith isn't necessary to be religious. Perhaps this claim confuses you and sounds like it might contradict my claim not to be religious - it would sound like that to the dumb. — Bartricks

I asked why you aren’t religious. Perhaps you’re too dumb to answer.

What are you on about? I am not religious. I believe in God. I am not religious. — Bartricks

Why aren’t you religious?

I’ll quote you again for the third time:

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. — Bartricks

We may need no more faith in God than chatting with them at the local pub. They may be as plainly real as anyone or anything else. No “faith” required. Religion, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Did you read anything I said? — Bartricks

Yes. Oddities sometimes attract my attention.

You wrote:

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd.

Significantly, your claim is about faith in relation to religion. It’s as though you cannot separate the concepts of religion and God. I will attempt to help you with that.

Imagine that on some lazy afternoon you’re performing your most popular tricks at the local pub and **SHABANG** a giant Rastafarian woman materializes in the barstool next to you. All the other bar patrons are like, “Wow, good trick, Bartricks!” You’re dumbfounded, of course, not knowing what’s going on. You timidly say hello to the giant woman. She explains that she is God and just dropped in for a pint of Guinness. Everyone being skeptical of her claim, she proceeds to perform various acts that convince even the most skeptical of her claim.

You then ask her, “So all that stuff in the Bible is true?”

“No, that’s all bullcrap, man. I created the universe to grow ganja.”, she confided.

Religion?

:razz:

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. — Bartricks

Faith is a requirement in religion because followers need to be dependent on their authority figures (those who tell the followers what to believe).

My view is best reflected in the quote below, but it is apparently not shared by many on here:

“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Thomas Jefferson — Gladiator of Truth

Whatdabout the truth of who fathered Sally Hemings's children? :joke:

According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.

If there's any truth to that it's far worse than any religious fanaticism I've ever heard of.

All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organization are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

Seemed to be entirely motivated by a grab for power/control.

From Wikipedia:

As an adult, Napoleon was a deist, believing in an absent and distant God. However, he had a keen appreciation of the power of organized religion in social and political affairs, and he paid a great deal of attention to bending it to his purposes. He noted the influence of Catholicism's rituals and splendors.

Looks like he may have known how to effectively use religion. No wonder he was successful.

Fanaticism and lack of judgement is as bad in religion as it is in politics and all areas of life. And atheists can be as fanatical as theists even though they may not admit it or even not be aware of it. — Apollodorus

For example?

If imbeciles believe he’s on the verge of being reinstated they’re more likely to donate, I imagine.

Nothing to get upset about. — Apollodorus

Each year over 3 million children die from hunger and undernutrition. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates. Climate change will significantly 'disturb the order of the world'.

Indeed none of this seems to upset you or your God.

You said “His job is to govern the universe and keep the human race and other creatures under control, not to be nice to people.”

If he’s controlling us then history is being made according to God’s plan. I’m just saying that it appears to be a really really shitty plan.

His job is to govern the universe and keep the human race and other creatures under control, not to be nice to people. — Apollodorus

Letting us have world wars with millions killed, trash the planet, and cause mass extinctions of “other creatures” is God’s way of controlling us? It’s all part of The Plan, you say? Seems like a really shitty plan.

True, people aren't God. But people say that God gave them the laws according to which they act. — Apollodorus

How very convenient. :wink:

If we take God to be the supreme Good, then being good is acting in harmony with God. — Apollodorus

Unfortunately God doesn’t say how to act, people say how to act, and people aren’t God (supreme Good).

I'd like an example of a crazy/insane philosopher. The heresiarchs of the old days, those who questioned institutional reality (Christian cosmogony) with original hypotheses were possibly insane/corrupt by the standards of the time, but there was great pay off for future generations. — Nils Loc

Socrates gadflying in public, totally cray cray.

A quick glance at a few of the videos gave me the impression that the Academy of Ideas is the brainchild of some Koch brothers think tank, designed to promote traditional values and glorify the individual so that working class folk will be less likely to get uppity (unionize or whatever). Insidious.

Don’t worry, modern artist still paint depressing pictures like this...

{{{You}}} < virtual hugg with extra squeezes — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Hey, whooooooa, watch were you’re squeez’n there lady! I’ll have to conflate Trump and alien bioweapons more often. :razz:

Philosophy is like painting: there has been no progress since the cave painting of prehistory {as Picasso I think said}. — unenlightened

He only said that because he couldn't paint like Sargent.

Like Trumps twitter account or an alien bioweapon.

A little atmosphere.

How can such a burdened human ever be free to meet a new unknown moment. — “skyblack”

Act like a bear and fight or flee.

The first signs of a failure of intelligence and affection is to fixate on the author/poster rather than the topic/what they are saying. — skyblack

In this case you chose to flee, however, you’re not a bear, you’re apparently an intellectually dishonest human being who lacks the integrity to answer a very relevant question.

If OP is corrupt then whatever OP says is corrupting.

No I meant Harris' ongoing discussion about wellbeing as the foundation for morality. He also uses human flourishing. — Tom Storm

I think they call it utilitarianism.

What constitutes 'wellbeing' and please no Sam Harris... — Tom Storm

Sam Harris is a stoic?

Well-being in the stoic sense is often referred to as eudaemonia.

Okay, let's try a different image. Think of reality as a giant puzzle and you represent one puzzle piece. There is only one place in the puzzle where you fit, despite whatever other people or you yourself think you fit. Self-actualization is fitting the place were you fit yourself. That sounds awkward because you only fit one place regardless of who does the fitting and the fact that you were never out of place. It is all an illusion.

If self-actualization is a goal - what if your best self is as an efficient serial killer? — Tom Storm

It's not about being the best at anything, it's about well-being.

The OP could jettison "corrupt" and "innocent" for different qualifying terms, like virtuous versus virtueless, skillful versus unskillful, logical versus non-logical, et cetera. Not much to be gained by giant black and white categories reminiscent of the church or court of law. — Nils Loc

His religious-like reverence for the * Unknown * suggests that it's more like the former.

This part is telling...

if a mind is afflicted by all this then it's an unhealthy, corrupt and damaged mind. Such a mind is violent, competitive, confused, a conflicted mind that won't be able to attribute true values... — skyblack

The problem here is that how can you "attribute true values" if knowledge is corruption. He defines Knowledge as "all the information we have either accumulated or has been dumped on us. It includes but is not limited to how we were brought up, what we have read, all that we have experienced consciously and unconsciously, our conditionings, our beliefs, our affiliations etc." Somehow true values exist independent of all that – in a cloud of unknowing or the like perhaps – and only people like skyblack have access to this sacred place.