Are you sure. — 3017amen

Yeah, positive. We could put money on it. If you can find a logic textbook that talks about burden of proof or "needing to defend" certain claims, you win. If you can't find one after a certain period of time, I win.

Yep I love me some William James as well. Just like Maslow he was a psychologist turned philosopher so he has some good experience behind his theories.

That would certainly be under the heading of consciousness and phenomenology which again, does not help Atheism.

The varieties of religious experience book, deserves another thread... I've got it... . Great read!

Ha, sounds good TS! Be back at cha soon.

Shooting fish in a barrel. Boring, not philosophically interesting. Will editorialize, though, when the usual sophistry, cant & uninformed - thoughtless - bloviating are afoot. Maybe I'll play later (have to catch a flight).

For a relatively long period of time (several hundred thousand years) we were hunter gatherers, doing much the same thing that other animals do. So, where do the higher cognitive skills come into play? — Bitter Crank

I think once you get into the hunter gatherer epoch of human development, you're already at the stage of higher cognitive skills. At least for the hunting part, because humans have pretty lousy natural hunting traits: our teeth are too flat, our nails too brittle, and we're neither very fast nor very strong (though we can run longer than most other land animals).

After we became homo sapiens, the cognitive abilities and innovation took over for evolution to provide us with food, comfort, etc.

Why new traits evolve in the first place when other species were doing just fine is pretty much coincidence. Random mutation led to a trait that was not disadvantageous enough to kill off those offspring, possibly was even beneficial.

Cool 180! Come back when you have time. Be safe on your trip. Actually maybe pick one of the seven topics to parse I'd be happy to debate those with you...

Whats an example of an atheist trying to impose their views? — DingoJones

In order to impose your views onto others, you need to grab control over the government in one way or another, and get them to do it for you.

For example, look at the rules and procedure for divorce in the West. Do they apply the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, or any other religion's rules-cum-formalisms? No. Absolutely not.

So, what they apply, is a non-religious system. Hence, for all practical purposes, it is an atheist/secular system.

Furthermore, if you confess to being of religion X, will the secular state respect that? Will the secular state let you use the procedures and rules of religion X? No, they will force their atheist system down your throat.

For myself, I can happily accept any of the three Abrahamic religious systems of divorce (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), because they are in my opinion fair in one way or another. Over the centuries, they have turned out to be sustainable practices. Furthermore, if I sign a marriage contract with someone, specifying that one particular choice of these three systems is applicable, why does the State's godless vermin stick their noses into none of their business, and declare their godless rules to be applicable instead?

That is just one example, one of the many actually, of an instance in which the atheist/secular state forcibly overrules people's religion, because they somehow mistakenly believe that their atheist/secular bullshit would be superior to the religious take on the matter.

That belief of superiority is utterly baseless, though, because there is absolutely nobody who believes that the atheist/secular divorce-rape procedures are even fair. Now that pretty much nobody wants to get married anymore, how can they still claim that the atheist/secular marriage contract would be somehow "better"?

So, the atheists have managed to wholesale destroy the nuclear families in the West, and hence, the entire social structure, but hey, their views on the matter would still be better!

Hey BC wanted to give you some love there.

As you know I'm a critic of most Fundamentalism when it comes to Christian apologetics and certain theology.

What really bothers me and saddens me is the harm that you alluded to relative to those old school paradigms. And even though I am heterosexual, it really hurts me when I see homosexual men and women committing suicide over some erroneous Bible interpretation.

As a Christian Existentialist you may know that I don't consider the Bible a perfect book. And you may know that so-called ' rationale ' relates to: Church politics, lost gospels, translations, different religions excluding certain books, medical science, and so forth.

The Fundamentalist taking literal interpretation from everything in the Bible contributes to extremism. We know common sense says there's much historic contextual allegory and metaphor that's part of the human condition... .

This is another reason why I frame the topic '... 21st Century.' It's time we get smarter and balance both science and religion appropriately. I mean in the case of LGBT the Bible is not a medical science book. And for all we know due to church politics, it's certainly possible scripture could have been easily edited out. After all, we know for example that ambiguous genitalia babies exist. And maybe they weren't reported then...

As you were.

In order to impose your views onto others, you need to grab control over the government in one way or another, and get them to do it for you. — alcontali

And if religious people control the government, wouldnt they be the ones imposing? Wouldnt they be imposing on the atheists? Wouldnt they be imposing on other religions with different practices?
Also, your tone is very angry. You interested in discussing or ranting?

So, the atheists have managed to wholesale destroy the nuclear families in the West, and hence, the entire social structure, but hey, their views on the matter would still be better! — alcontali

Multiple factors have gone into the decline of the nuclear family and the increasing lack of desire to marry. The problem with religion is that it is suitable only for those who can have faith in something for which there is no experiential evidence. (Even a so-called religious experience does not constitute evidence for the veracity of any particular religion or even for religion as such).

I'll let you and Dingo hash the political issues out, in the meantime and in a similar way, I think you would agree that here in America our currency suggests the merits of Deity tipping the scales in favor of Christianity.

In God we trust. Generally speaking, maybe God has blessed this country. One of the greatest countries in the world IMHO.

Even a so-called religious experience does not constitute evidence for the veracity of any particular religion or even for religion as such).


Interesting are you sure about that? Have you ever had a religious experience? Have you experienced miraculous happenstance?

Per the OP, have you ever had an NDE?

The Kierkegaard challenge is not about what can be said to exist or not.
Whatever you are into, please associate it with somebody else.

Are you talking about the ineffable?

I have had quite a few what I would count as mystical or religious experiences, and yet I am not religious, because I don't interpret those experiences as being signs of the truth of any particular religion or even of religion truth in general in any kind of "perennialist" sense. If you are familiar with the literature you will know that such kinds of experiences are common to all religious traditions, and that is precisely why they cannot be evidence for the veracity of any religion.

Such experiences are always interpreted, and usually in ways compatible with the religious culture one has been inducted into.

A good question. I will re-phrase:

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?

And if religious people control the government, wouldnt they be the ones imposing? Wouldnt they be imposing on the atheists? Wouldnt they be imposing on other religions with different practices? — DingoJones

Some religions do, but other religions absolutely do not.

In the Ottoman Empire, a millet /ˈmɪlɪt/[1][needs Turkish IPA] was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.

The Ottoman term specifically refers to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which minorities were allowed to rule themselves (in cases not involving any Muslim) with fairly little interference from the Ottoman government.[12][13]

The millets had a great deal of power – they set their own laws and collected and distributed their own taxes.

This is a direct consequence of numerous provisions in the Quran and the Sunnah which strictly forbid applying Islamic law to non-Muslims, the most important of which is the testimony in which the prophet of Islam administered law between Jews out of the Jewish scripture:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school. They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you...... Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi'(No. 4431).

As you can understand from this narrative, an Islamic ruler will not administer Islamic law in a Jewish dispute or concerning a Jewish criminal offence. Instead, it is the Jewish religious scholars (Rabbis) who will be habilitated to adjudicate the case.

Of course, this practice only applies if such community has a documented system of law, i.e. a "scripture". There is no requirement for any ruler to recognize undocumented law.

Are there any psychologists who support your view?

@3017amen, not much philosophy in bio-denying Yahweh'ism. :confused:

Einstein said: — 3017amen

Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Not sure how relevant this is, though.

I will demonstrate through those seven aforementioned phenomena (and other’s may have more or less), using logical inference, that the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism. — 3017amen

I, for one, would love to see your demonstration. When will that occur? — NOS4A2

Let me know when you got it figured out! — 3017amen

Hm. I was looking forward to your demonstration as well, but then you wanted @NOS4A2 to instead.

Is Yahweh hiding somewhere in your opening post...?

Just don't say: God does not exist. — 3017amen

How about, a bit like Socrates, "Not taking your word for it, though I'd take Shiva's"?

As an aside, creationist "kinds" are demonstrably nonsense:

• In a small part of a ring species, x and y can have offspring (⇒ same "kind"), and y and z can have offspring (⇒ same "kind").
• All the same "kind" (transitive relation).
• But x and z cannot have offspring (⇒ not the same "kind"). ⚡
• Therefore "kind" is incoherent.

I'll let you and Dingo hash the political issues out, in the meantime and in a similar way, I think you would agree that here in America our currency suggests the merits of Deity tipping the scales in favor of Christianity. — 3017amen

Yes, but Christian rules must not be imposed onto, for example, Jews. I absolutely do not believe in doing that.

If you confess to being a Christian, then you are seeking to keep Christian rules, and therefore, you implicitly declare Christian rules to be applicable to you. That is in my opinion the reason why Christians can be held against Christian law.

As far as I am concerned, there is no other reason for being held to confessional rules than your own confession.

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?


In a Kierkegaardian sense I conceive God as an ineffable experience. Though if I were to put it into words I would say the Christian God is spirit. And for what it's worth there is some scripture that supports that. And of course the Book of Thomas that was left out of the Bible includes Gnosticism...

That seems irrelevant. Are there any who don't?

Agreed, however man-made rules and certain dogma can be detrimental to the human condition. The Jesus I believe in promotes love and pacifism. In that sense, politics and government was not his kingdom.

Well if it's irrelevant why are you asking? How about if I give you some hints: Maslow and James among many others...

Welcome Joe! Which items out of the seven in the OP would like me to parse?

The problem with religion is that it is suitable only for those who can have faith in something for which there is no experiential evidence. — Janus

Not all of religion lacks experiential evidence. Some other reasons people engage in religious activity: They like getting together in church and singing; they like being reassured and praying (which is experiential for the people praying; a listening god is not experiential). They like the experience of ritual, like the eucharist. They like seeing friends. Participants in religion like social events such as common meals which happen in church--pot lucks, funeral luncheons, Advent or Lenten meals and worship, or Christmas parties, and the like. All experiential. Being taught about "that for which there is no evidence" is itself experiential. Sunday school is experiential, even if the subject of the teaching is never manifest.

Religions ALL involve a lot of person to person stuff, which is our human bread and butter.

Unless, of course, if they try to impose their views onto me. That is when I get pissed off. — alcontali

How do you feel about all the preachers indoctrinators proselytizers out there, then?
4th Grade Science Quiz (David Mikkelson, Snopes, Apr 2013)

Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing. — DingoJones

Yeah. A majority of religious adherents (like Christian, Hindu, Muslim) ...

• have been spoon-fed a particular faith from childhood, implicitly or explicitly as the truth — preaching
• have not been spoon-fed alternatives (objections, other religions, irreligion) impartially and on equal footing — withholding (or ignorance)
• have grown up in an environment promoting a particular faith (implicit or explicit peer-pressure, etc), expected to accept that faith without critical inquiry
• have commonly been subject to unsubstantiable promises and threats (e.g. damnation), arguably a kind of abuse

All their deities neither evident nor necessary, just humans.

Which items out of the seven in the OP would like me to parse? — 3017amen

I will demonstrate through those seven aforementioned phenomena (and other’s may have more or less), using logical inference, that the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism. — 3017amen

...

How do you feel about all the preachers indoctrinators proselytizers out there, then?
4th Grade Science Quiz (David Mikkelson, Snopes, Apr 2013) — jorndoe

Those people are not a good example.

Pick a serious theologian at the Catholic University of Turin to talk about Catholic theology. Or pick an experienced Rabbi at a Sanhedrin of your choice to solve jurisprudential questions in Jewish law; or choose an experienced mufti who lectures at the Islamic University of Alexandria. These people understand their own system very, very well.

Seriously, you are going for the wrong crowd. The people whom you have chosen, are not to be taken seriously. They simply known nothing about their own subject.

not to be taken seriously — alcontali

(y)

I was referring to the majority out there.
The preachers indoctrinators proselytizers that all claim to be speaking the truth of the matter.
And that is what we're after, yes?
It's not like the pastors/imams/pujas conclude their sermons with "Oh, but we don't know".

Hence asking how you feel about them. (Apparently, some piss you off.)