Yes, I think this is about right. There are differences between religions, but there certainly is a shared mystical core in all of them. — Agustino
I very much agree.The shared core is one of the things which validates religion as a real thing. It is a real property of human existence. Likewise, as much as we are all very different, as human beings there is a "shared core", and it is the shared core which validates the claim that there is a single species called human being. — Metaphysician Undercover
Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything. — Benkei
Catholicism is either irrelevant to the actions of humans or it is directly responsible for some pretty horrific mass murders and abuses. I don't think it's unreasonable for the victims of such abuse, still going on to this day, and their supporters to carry just a little antipathy towards the Church. — Inter Alia
And, I believe that it is reasonable to have more faith in ancient books than modern books because they have stood the test of time, by demonstrating their consistency. — Metaphysician Undercover
The shared core argument you're making is the same flawed argument that gets dragged out in Philosophy 101 classes every semester as proof against moral relativism: There must be absolutes because every culture shares the same basic moral truths. — Hanover
Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. — Harry Hindu
It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher. — T Clark
the sins you have enumerated are small change. A few tens of thousands of lives. — T Clark
What about the meaning of words, aren't they things unseen? Or do you claim to have seen the body and blood of Christ? If you've taken part in the Eucharist, you have evidence that the items are body and blood of Christ, because you've seen them, and seen that this is what they are called. If you think that the words refer to something else, or that the items should be called something else, you are going on faith in something unseen. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have expanded on that thought much more in other threads. I even started one where I tried to discuss it in depth. I made a valid point - in my opinion, theists have a more complete understanding of the nature of reality than atheists, materialists, realists, and their ilk do. It's a respectable philosophical argument with a history. My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand. — T Clark
My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand. — T Clark
Nope, not begging the question at all. I expressed something in Christian discourse, you want me to translate to atheist? It's just a question of translation. You cannot figure the meaning of those terms. Read the rest of what I wrote. You don't have to be a theist to meditate for example. — Agustino
You're asking me if I'm afraid of an "if"?If eternal hell exists and if you are someone who is likely to be in hell in the afterlife, would hell be something to be afraid of? Yes or no? — Agustino
I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true.You're asking me if I'm afraid of an "if"? — Harry Hindu
It's not a matter of being cultured. I was a believer the first half of my life. It's a matter of being logical and reasonable.I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true. — Agustino
No. Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence.Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. — Harry Hindu
This type seems to sum you up quite well, but I'm sure you won't see that irony. — Buxtebuddha
So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself?grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)) — Harry Hindu
Okay. Thanks for that admission. It was a simple yes or no question, you could have answered it sooner and avoided all this dragged conversation. I'm not trying to ask you difficult questions.IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell — Harry Hindu
Right, and you too - you're changing your behaviour based on the if that God doesn't exist. You claim that the theist believes in God because he is afraid of death and mortality, while the theist claims that you disbelieve in God because you are afraid of hell. So either position is as much a delusion as the other based on the criteria you have offered.You say that you don't accept it's existence unquestioningly, but if you are changing your behavior as a result of you believing it does exist, then that is a true symptom of a delusion. You are changing your behavior based on an IF. — Harry Hindu
Affirming with your conviction that there is no evidence (which is actually a negative) is much more likely to be a delusion than not. You can say that you have not personally found the evidence, that is different than saying there is no evidence. Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence?Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence. — Harry Hindu
Who told you eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist? As far as I'm aware, Christianity talks of a BODILY resurrection of the dead, so, by all means, it doesn't suggest there are spirits without bodies around.So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.