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

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.

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

I very much agree.

Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything. — Benkei

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.

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

Knock yourself out. Have as much antipathy as you want. What does that have to do with the value of a Catholic world view? And the sins you have enumerated are small change. A few tens of thousands of lives. What they did in the new world with the Indians and slaves is the real game. So what?

Some of the arguments that have been presented here are hilarious. If I throw a blanket over my cat and call it a grizzly bear, is that evidence that my cat has become a grizzly bear? Evidence or not, it's a long way off from being sufficient to reasonably conclude that my cat has become a grizzly bear. This kind of argument, which is of the kind that has been employed in this discussion, is fallacious - whether it's an irrelevant conclusion, a conclusion which doesn't follow, or equivocation. It's lose-lose.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I do hold there are moral truths, but I also think some cultures think wrong is right. The same holds true of religion, and you can't arbitrarily reject those you feel are too primitive or that hold to satanic beliefs.

You're also departing the crux of this thread, and that is the question of the validity of the Euchrist. I'm pretty sure the Jewish faith, for example, rejects that to the core.

Your cat is an emaciated bug eyed dwarf. Throwing a blanket over it doesn't make it a grizzly bear. It just makes it more tolerable to be around.

:D

But if I call the item a grizzly bear... (and around we go).

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

Your test for validity uses a stopwatch, not a petri dish. Monarchies have existed longer than democracies, so let's stick with that.

He believes that a fallacy is reasonable. Enough said.

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

One of the first principles taught to you in philosophy class, and you dismissed it, without reason, as "flawed". Some people just weren't meant to be philosophers.

That's why I got out of mathematics, I couldn't grasp what they were teaching in algebra, so I knew mathematics was not my calling.. You can't grasp what they teach in philosophy, yet for some reason you still want to be a philosopher.

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.

And so this conversation ends with a lame insult like most.

I;m baffled. You said

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

I'm struggling to see how that's not a statement clearly suggesting that an accurate assessment of the Church's virtues is essential to good philosophy on this subject. Apart, it would seem, if you want to conclude that the Church has little or no net virtue when all of a sudden you're claiming it becomes irrelevant. This is just fashionable fence-sitting.

As to.

the sins you have enumerated are small change. A few tens of thousands of lives. — T Clark

I'm speechless... A few tens of thousands is OK? How many people need to be victims of genocide for you to move of the fence, does it have to get into the millions? Or is it all made better if they do a bit of good work for charity' later on? If Hitler had done a bit of leafleting for Oxfam would it become 'monstrous hubris' to keep going on about the holocaust?

I find your dismissive lack of value for human life and dignity quite shocking. The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of people and subjected probably ten times that amount to abuse in the form emotional and physical torture in the name of it's bullshit religion, Nothing... absolutely nothing makes up for that.

You can't buy your way out of crimes against humanity with a bit of charity work.

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 am a raised Catholic. I've already set out above what I think about transubstantiation. And obviously I'm not going by faith at all. After you named it "the body and blood of Christ" we can run every conceivable test on it and establish that it's still stale bread and bad wine. So my statement actually corresponds to reality and isn't something "unseen" as it is a claim about the world as-is. I'm the one that is saying something that can be proved by conventional means. Your point can only be proved through faith which renders it a fairy tale. This is the same "really real" nonsense expounded every time people have a religious experience except that it has been ritualised.

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

You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice.

My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand. — T Clark

Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society.

EDIT: Oh wait, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. :-}

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 begging the question as you already assumed the existence of God and go from there. Since I don't accept the premise, the argument is unnecessary to be considered. And yes we can meditate but you specifically related those things to becoming closer to God. I don't ascribe to that either. As a result we cannot have a meaningful discussion on the subject.

And yes we can meditate but you specifically related those things to becoming closer to God — Benkei

What do you obtain by meditating? That - whatsoever you call it - is what I call getting closer to God.

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

You're asking me if I'm afraid of an "if"?

You're asking me if I'm afraid of an "if"? — Harry Hindu

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.

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

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.

IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell, the God that wants to put me there for the simple infraction of not believing in it's existence, and of people like you who agree that I should be put there for not believing in their stories for which there is no evidence.

Isn't the existence of hell a big IF? 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, for which there is no evidence of it's existence.

What do you obtain by meditating? That - whatsoever you call it - is what I call getting closer to God. — Agustino

Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that?

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

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 (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)) — Harry Hindu

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?

IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell — 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.

Now onto the next part.

If the existence of hell would be a source of fear, then couldn't someone be an atheist and disbelieve in God so that he can go on under the delusion that there is no hell in the afterlife and not have to worry about it now while living his life? I mean you certainly have a nicer night's sleep knowing that whatever you happened to have done, nothing will happen in the afterlife.

This would be exactly like the theist who, because he is afraid of death under your conception, hearkens unto the notion of God. So too the atheist, because he is afraid of responsibility and being held accountable for what he has done, hearkens onto the notion that there isn't a God.

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

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.

All this shows is the limitation of thinking that either position is intellectually based on fear, as if there couldn't be rational reasons for believing or disbelieving. So this psychologising is kindergarten level philosophy. We have to go beyond those stupidities and finger pointing if we want to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.

Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that? — Benkei

You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation.

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

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?

You're missing a very important point. There is no evidence of God's existence. Delusions are covering up things for which there is evidence, with things for which there is no evidence.

Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional?

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

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.

Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person.