Your thinking is the kind that leads people toward hatred of others with a different religion, the kind wars are waged on. It is not healthy, nor open-minded. — intrapersona

No, my thinking is the one which is literally out of all those issues. I do not understand why people feels "hatred" whenever someone is brave enough to critique old religious doctrines

FAITH: define
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. — intrapersona

I think the definition you provided us is completely clear. Faith depends on trust, confidence, beliefs, in something or religious doctrines. So, we can say here that is not possible to develop some kind of "criticism" or knowledge towards the act of believing in God. If you are a true believer you would believe in God's existence so blindly. It doesn't matter if we are debating about their or not existence. For a believer it does exist, simple.
This is what faith is all about. It goes beyond knowledge and criticism.

Secondly, I think you are wrong when you say atheism depends on the "faith" on not believing in God at all. You are confusing here scepticism with faith. I am atheist and I don't believe in God because there are not sufficient proofs to believe about and their doctrines. Thus, I am sceptical towards religious doctrines.
But this is why I can't have "faith" it would be contradictory. Faith is a positive act. Like a subterfuge you used to answer questions you don't understand. Instead of using criticism or logic you just believe in something. But this issue is so far away from being sceptical towards religion

Really? Historical events like the Inquisition immediately come to mind. — praxis

They had a special court called "the court of inquisition in Madrid" they rarely set the people in fire... if you check the data (not influenced by black legend) you would see that they were a few who experienced that drama. Again, as I said to Bitter Crank, non Catholic countries as Germany or Austria burnt down more witches or heretics than the Spanish inquisition...

I like the Monty Python's caricature of Spanish inquisition, but truste me when I say they weren't that bad as the "history" books say.
Plot twist: Germany burnt down more "witches" and heretics than the Spanish inquisition. I never understood why we are the only ones who looks like as the bad character inside of history.

Note that I do not pretend to defend my ancestors but only to highlight that it wasn't as excessive as the people tend to think!

Completely agree with you, NOS.

But I think both sides are wrong. Trump possessing sensitive declassified documents and the prosecution against Assange and Snowden are causes of why the citizenship is losing the hope and credibility in democracy.

Because it is a public and sensitive matter. It should be in an authority control, not in private hands or businesses.

Agreed with all your argument and post :up:

If one is omniscient then how can its creation be flawed? — universeness

A selfish one. Or at least someone or something who makes us remember that it is over of all criteria and goes beyond to all the limitations of possibilities. Writing this answer I am acknowledging that this has no sense. I guess this is what a omnipotent looks like in the infinite universe of metaphysics or quantum mechanics.
"We", thus, their "creation" are flawed because the omnipotent entity would not create something clever and mightier than itself. But we end up in a paradox again as you perfectly explain previously.
I see a paradox here because his perfection is senseless is he pretends to elaborate just flawed creations.

How about omniwoowoo! — universeness

:eyes: :sparkle: This one goes beyond to any category of reason!

Does omniscience suggest knowledge of all possible errors? — universeness

@Rocco Rosano quoted a phrase in his first post which says: ‘‘An omniscient being needs no logic and no mathematics,’’
It is so interesting, indeed. Trying to answer your question I guess omniscience doesn't suggest knowledge of all possible errors because it is not a logical entity. When we debate about errors inside logic we have to start with the premise that the thing is logical itself, so we conclude it makes "errors" because it doesn't fit what we consider as "logic" or "success", etc...
But omniscience cannot fit those parameters because it isn't logical since the beginning.

Conflating "omniscience" with "god" (which god?) is a non sequitur. — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

Sunni Islamists have been supported more or less covertly by various governments or other powerful groups, whose representatives have sometimes at the same time publicly expressed sympathy with their actions and views. — Jamal

Yes, exactly. Every government with a "Pan-Islamism" point of view supported those groups and their actions. We can check a lot of examples like Egypt with Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein as Prime Minister. Irak with Sadam Hussein and his "Baaz party" or Bashar al-Assad's family members controlling Syria since the 1970's.

otherwise you might have shamanic nightmares! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Oh boy! :rofl: :death:

Your intentions were welcomed, friend. I see that you wanted to know what was going on with this thread as I tried it too. But there are still more questions than answers...

But he said, specifically, non-humans ancestors

(and non-human) ancestors — Bret Bernhoft

He wasn't referring to living animals or tulpas or whatever until he answered your quotes.
This is why it shocked me. How can we have non-human ancestors when we are already humans?
It is pretty contradictory...

If time doesn't flow and the future already happened, is reality superdeterministic? — litewave

This a very good philosophical question indeed.

It's not philosophy because, like this thread, it is not self-critical. — Banno

:100:

Every entity, any entity (from living animals to eternal tulpas) utilize elements of Shamanism. You do too, whether you acknowledge it or not. — Bret Bernhoft

Those (animals and "tulpas") are not even aware of themselves. Conciousness is a complex concept related to human knowledge. If a living animal has a very limited conciousness I guess they are not able to "practice" shamanism because they are not aware of such complexity...

Then, what do you mean by "and non-human"? Someone like this: :naughty: ?
:grin: — Alkis Piskas

I asked the same question too and I still wait for an answer because it intrigues me a lot what he would consider as a "non - human ancestor"

I do not have kids but I would lie to them if it would be necessary to their safety

So shiny and radiant :sparkle: :100:

Today philosophers and scientists are still the minority. If everyone performed the duty of the scholars, who would farm and build? — Yohan

:up: :100:

A minority group which is capable of controlling those farmers and builders. We still live like in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece but with internet.

Which Tarot card features my portrait today ? Is it grizzly Scientism or spooky Mysticism ? — Pie

The ermit. This is the card which features your portrait today. Why? Because he carries his Lamp of Truth, used to guide the unknowing,

I am agree with you in some parts.

It is true that primitive group were not less developed. But for a lot of reasons they weren't part of the "progress" because some decided to got stuck in their primitive thoughts and ideas while other groups started to develop different ideas.

You put a good example: mythology. This area of knowledge was pretty important to Ancient Greece, indeed. But keep in mind that it was "primitive" according to Plato and Socratic philosophers.
Philosophy started because in Ionia some thinkers decided to critique mythology because they saw it as "backwards"

And what of today? Are not the masses cave men with smartphones? — Yohan

Completely agree. Good example of our modern era.

Yes, I see your point and I am agree with you.

Actually, I think God can be taken out of a religious context too. But it has a lot to do with linguistics. — Yohan

I think not. Here I disagree. "God" is an elementary religious subterfuge used by all the religions. It cannot be explained out of religious doctrines because otherwise, it would be secularism and faith.
Also, the belief in God depends on faith. This concept is so much related to shamanism, animism, Judaism, Christianity, etc...
I do not know if these "thoughts" can see God outside a religious context.

In indigenous times, there was no demarcation between spiritual and secular. — Yohan

Well, yes. But this is due to the fact that they didn't experience Enlightenment until the colonialism turned up. There was no demarcation because they didn't know what a secular system was about. I mean, they way of life was full of metaphors and shamanic rituals. Their citizens didn't have other choices.

If I don't make mistakes, how will you learn — Agent Smith

:up:

No, I don't think it is negative. But what I guess is that "hippies" don't understand animism or shamanism pretty much. They just follow it because it seems to be "cool" being connected with nature but I personally think such theory is far of this thought...
At least, you take it so seriously and I respect it. I mean, I see you can find some significance in the "root of universe" thanks to shamanism but at the same time, it is a primitive thought.
Conclusion: it is not bad believing in shamanism but is far away from being a philosophical trend.

The conflict or disharmony between heart and mind (Xin), how well/badly these two work (together), will decide, in my humble opinion, humanity's fate! — Agent Smith

That's true.

I think your thoughts can be related to Taoism, New-Daoism, Yin and Yang, Confucianism, etc...

Verse 39.
Being in harmony with the Tao way
The sky obtained clarity and the earth became stable.
In harmony things were gradually created.

Out of the Tao way the man is not in harmony with the sky
He is not stable on the earth.
Without this equilibrium, the man disappears.

The Wise Person sees everything in equilibrium,
He doesn't manifest his Ego, or intervene.
First he will monitor the Tao Way,
Uniting with the Tao Way, he is in equilibrium as well.

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism - Do we need the Ding an Sich? :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible. — Gnomon

:100: :up:

Thanks! Your thoughts and comments are so interesting, indeed! :up:

Yet, there's a paradox in my previous reply. Can you find what? (It's easy now that I have pointed it out,) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I guess I found the paradox in your reply.

A truth, if it ever existed, needs to be objectively. But, paradoxically, the nature and sense of truths depend on humans's perspective and consensus.
So, a truth would need to be subjective to exist.

There are no Absolute Truths — Alkis Piskas

No? Are you really sure?
I think death is an absolute truth. Sooner or later it comes to us and is unstoppable. So, we can consider the act of born, live and die as absolute truths.

Shamanism has always been romanticised by hippies! :sweat:

If you check out information about Shamanism, all the papers written by specialists, agree with the fact that shamans are related to some kind of religion. Their principles are connected to animism (as @180 Proof pointed out previously).
This traditional thought is also related to Indigenous religion... the range of different belief systems across the Americas, Australasia, Asia, Africa, and Northern Europe, particularly to those practiced by communities living under the impact of colonialism.

Shamanism is a set of tools — Bret Bernhoft

What kind of tools?

Just like all actions are magick, so too is all consciousness shamanic; especially human consciousness. — Bret Bernhoft

But if I do not have the proper tools then my actions are not "magick" neither my consciousness is shamanic

There is no faith in shamanism. Shamanism is about evidence, showing the goods. — Bret Bernhoft

What? There couldn't be evidence about "showing the goods" because that's a very generic concept. Discern about what is good and bad depends on ethics, thus philosophy. We say there are "goods" when we make actions which cause them but not thanks to shamanism.

Look you are contradictory when you say shamanism is not about faith but at the same time you typed:

Just like all actions are magick, — Bret Bernhoft

What is "magick" nothing but a state of faith on something?

Are you religious yourself? — Bret Bernhoft

No

We can never know what is going on in the OP's mind because he always tends to not answer our thoughts and posts:cry:

I am referring to holism! The parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot be understood without reference to the whole.
But I am thinking right now that this theory could be so generic...
Trying to study each part specifically is important too. I do not want to be attached to any theory neither sound radical about it.
Probably, essence and substance can be better understood if we study it individually.

Yes. Another example of "principle of sufficient reason" could be: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" by Aristotle.
When you connect more objects in a way, there will be a system emerge. That system somehow hold new properties that does not exist in those object that form the system.

Or Cogito Ergo Sum by Descartes. At least, we can consider it as a "principle of sufficient reason" of my awareness of existence. :chin:

It would seem that death is a far greater mystery than time — Gregory

Fully agree. Both concepts are even connected. We die due to the pass of time unless you decide to end your life for your own actions. Thus, suicide

Sensations can only be felt in time. So wouldn't animals feel time as well? — Gregory

They do not feel "time" because they do not know neither understand what is the meaning of time. This is only a human concept. We both can be agree with the fact that a dog (for example) feels or knows when he is older but he is not aware of his age. We are, as humans, the ones who say that the dog is 10 or 11 years old. But the dog, himself, is not aware of that. His reasoning is not so complete to get such complex thoughts. They even are not aware about the existence of themselves...

Nobody was more aware of time flowing then him among older philosophers — Gregory

That's true, indeed. Because time is a weakness of humans. We feel nostalgia and despair when the person and things around us disappear due to the pass of time. I guess it gives us anxiety because it is an aspect the humans cannot control. The next year I will be 26 years old and that's a fact that I cannot prevent. It will occur.
Time is unstoppable and it kills us. That's why philosophers are always so concern about it.

It depends in on minds, indeed but as an illusion. Time is a complex concept that does not live outside human's awareness. Most of the rest of living being are not aware of the pass of time.
Kant said: "Time doesn't exist empirically outside the men's minds"