a history of being exploited by colonialists
— baker

So which is it, a history of being exploited or there is not injustice in the world? Or do you think the exploitation is just? — Fooloso4

I'm saying that material success depends on a great number of factors, many of which are systemic and outside of an individual's control (e.g. climate, natural resources, history of colonial exploitation). Saying that religion makes people poor, and then providing an example of some banana republic with high God belief is too simplistic. Instead, we'd need to look into the natural givens of a particular country, its historical development, and so on. It's not that God belief is making the people in some banana republic poor; it's more likely that they're poor because of centuries of colonial exploitation, or because they live in a climate that isn't conducive to intense agriculture, and so on.


Your contempt for religion is clouding your ability to think critically.

No, you're just measuring everything by your own human standards (instead of by God's)/quote]

That is true. I am human not a god. I do not know and cannot say what God's standard might be.
— baker

But if you're going to talk about God, you need to stick to the definitions actually provided by actual monotheistic religions — baker

Christian theologians have been arguing about the definition of God for centuries. Some think that it is a mistake to attempt to define what is beyond human comprehension, that any definition is false.

The issue was whether there is injustice in the world. That question is not about religion.

God is a model of the perfect human being, we humble ourselves in believing because we our blind to our own flaws. And we strive toward improving ourselves to that end.

In other words God is who we want to model. To become like him but knowing full well is unobtainable and we will never be like him.

Right wing extremism is not the way of God because it utilizes the word to judge and condemn others. To oppress and control and force to think there way.

Left wing is guilty of that to, oppressing faith base organization justifying the violation of there civil rights to accommodate another group. The US are more keen to tell Christians how to worship than compared to other faiths.

But anyway

True Christian faith is allowing you to choose the way on your own free-will.

I feel the true enemy is extremism or extreme ideology. Wanting to justify anger and resentment by saying I am right you are wrong, period end of story, stance.

Even truth taken to extreme can become corrupt.

And we are so gun hoe on being right that we are not realizing we are acting on extremist tendencies and hurting people in the process.

Knowing what is the truth is not enough but knowing how to express the truth with compassion and mercy is the way.

gun hoe — SteveMinjares

gung-ho.

True Christian faith is allowing you to choose the way on your own free-will. — SteveMinjares

So, Muslims who freely choose to be Muslims are Christian? As are Hindus? And Jains? And Buddhists? Thugees? How about Thugees?

What a Christian is and what it means to be a Christian are not easily answered. But I am pretty sure it has never meant what just anyone said it meant.

Christian theologians have been arguing about the definition of God for centuries. Some think that it is a mistake to attempt to define what is beyond human comprehension, that any definition is false. — Fooloso4

Well, since they're using words, I assume they mean something by those words, and that they aren't just glossolaling or blowing hot air.
(They should really give me credit for assuming that they're making sense!)

The issue was whether there is injustice in the world. That question is not about religion. — Fooloso4

No. The syllogism from which this originated was about God:

A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just — Fooloso4

You keep switching the goalposts, mixing two discourses.

Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do.

Do monotheists think there is injustice in the world? They can't, unless they run into some inconsistency with their definition of "God", or it turns out they worship a demigod.

The syllogism in question was about religion.

I don't understand how someone cannot see these obvious inconsistencies. Lack of critical ability, lack of insight or simple self-deception? — Banno

The same thing happened on the Euthyphro thread. I think it has something to do with an existential vested interest. I am sure that if you are wrong you'll be able to cope, but if they are wrong ... — Fooloso4

And if the two of you want to make ad personams, then at least have the decency to consider _all_ of what I say on a topic, instead of just selecting out a few sentences and ridiculing them, beating your chests like gorillaz.

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.

We can always tell an asshole apart from a good person despite our philosophical disagreements on morality

Well, since they're using words, I assume they mean something by those words, and that they aren't just glossolaling or blowing hot air. — baker

Yes, they mean something by there words, but that does not mean that there must be some actual object that corresponds to the words.

You keep switching the goalposts, mixing two discourses. — baker

You've lost track of the argument:

What do you know of God's justice?
— Fooloso4
Whatever can be done by syllogism. — baker

You mean like this?

A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just
— Fooloso4

The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow. — baker

First, whether or not the second premise is true or false it is a syllogism, and thus demonstrates that God's justice cannot be concluded syllogistically.

Second, if the second premise is false then you are denying that there is injustice in the world. Now, you say:

Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do. — baker

So, the second premise is not false after all.

Yes, they mean something by there words, but that does not mean that there must be some actual object that corresponds to the words. — Fooloso4

Not my problem. I only go where the syllogism takes me.

You've lost track of the argument:

No, you keep mixing discourses, mixing the argument prodived by religion with the one provided by you.

First, whether or not the second premise is true or false it is a syllogism, and thus demonstrates that God's justice cannot be concluded syllogistically.

God is defined as just to begin with. I'm not going to argue with definitions, for crying out loud.

Second, if the second premise is false then you are denying that there is injustice in the world. Now, you say:

Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do.
— baker

So, the second premise is not false after all.

And what did I say after that? I sed:

Do monotheists think there is injustice in the world? They can't, unless they run into some inconsistency with their definition of "God", or it turns out they worship a demigod. — baker

It's one thing to make arguments about religion from the perspective of said religion,
and quite another from one's own personal perspective.

The latter is irrelevant to the validity of the religious argument. Its soundness is another matter (and mostly moot, as far as religious claims go.)

@baker

[Edit: if] in response to my question:

What do you know of God's justice? — Fooloso4

you had responded that it is not something you know but something you accept as a matter of faith, that would have been the end of it. 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,

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.

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.