: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.

I suspect the problem is that you’re a visual learner so I’ve taken the liberty to literally draw it out for you. Enjoy...

The person or the thing you are looking at may or may not fall in the box you have mentally created, yet does that stop you from stereotyping? — skyblack

What we call stereotyping is part of how our minds work. It’s not possible to not do this. Perhaps your ideas about innocence are, well, innocent. Perhaps you intentionally attempt to mislead or corrupt because your mind has been corrupted. So there exists two boxes in my mind. A box where you are innocent. A box where you are corrupt. And a box for the unknown. Wait, that’s three boxes. Anyway, more information is required to determine which box you belong to.

Unfortunately, you can’t tell me which box you belong to if you’re innocent because if you’re innocent then you are innocent of the required knowledge. If you’re corrupt then you’ll conceal the corruption because you’re corrupt. The box for the unknown is where you currently reside.

Before the sky was blue it was black. Blue corrupts, and when it corrupts it corrupts absolutely.

No, there is no personal god to commune with in pantheism. — baker

Right, a God without personality. That being the case, communing with nature (or literally whatever) could be seen as communing with God. Doesn’t seems there’s any point to pantheism without experiencing the “sense that one is part of divinity”. I formally submit that the pantheist could become lost in this sensing and unwittingly become quietist. Stranger things have happened.

Ah, but only a corrupt mind is stingy with their energy and time.

I’ll read the article and then...

An innocent mind doesn’t fear unhealthy dialogue.

You believe that Pantheism somehow prevents Stoicism from being Quietism?
— praxis

Of course, because pantheism gives one a definitive sense that one is part of divinity, and that as such, one's life is worth living, that life is a big and worthy project worth striving for, all taking place in a big and worthy universe. — baker

You haven’t shown how this prevents Quietism. Actually I might assume the Pantheist to have quietist tendencies, wanting to contemplate and commune with God at the expense of all worldly concerns.

Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism. — DingoJones

So not just disbelief but belief that theism is dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior.

We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias. — Bitter Crank

"Blind” auditions for symphony orchestras reduced sex-biased hiring and improved female musicians' likelihood of advancing out of preliminary rounds, which often leads to tenured employment.

Stereotypes are unquestionably useful, we can glean a lot from a mere glance at a stranger, for instance, but they typically contain negative attributes and promote biases.

Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward.
— praxis

Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher. — Fooloso4

The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim.

"If Jesus is white and God is white, then authority is white," Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not. — Fooloso4

The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. Also, Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. Religious life doesn't require moral development at all, in fact it purposefully suppresses it, because moral development leads to independence, and independences leads to loss of control. The religious person is granted higher moral status for merely being part of the tribe.

Someone mentioned a Pew Research survey earlier in the topic that showed how some people who did not identify as religious nevertheless held some religious views. Of course the inverse of that must also be true and those who identify as religious hold secular views. I recently thought it remarkable when some religious conservatives condemned the current Pope for supporting climate change efforts. A case of the secular tribal identity Trumping the religious tribal identity.

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders.
— praxis

I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder. — Fooloso4

I’ll answer it. Apparently they were something like the following before wise men domesticated them.



How the mighty have fallen. :sad:

I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.

My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control. — Fooloso4

You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested.