I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.
I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about. — Michael Ossipoff
If you disagree then explain how either could be shown to be the case either logically or empirically. — Janus
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume
I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural. — praxis
You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.
Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory?? — praxis
Sorry, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t addressing it. — praxis
Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory?? — praxis
It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. — Thomas Nagel
Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.
... our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed. — Jake
Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall into place. — Jake
The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. — praxis
The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. — praxis
The thread isn't about theism or even atheism. It's a broad question, in which the only demonstrable interest you have is baiting 'theists'. — Wayfarer
I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser
But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is — S
Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically. — S
This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks. — S
Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear: — Pattern-chaser
If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions. — Pattern-chaser
You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll: — Pattern-chaser
My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable. — Rank Amateur
The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying. — Rank Amateur
there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". — Harry Hindu
Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. — Harry Hindu
If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder. — S
But whatever, carry on cheerleading and taking cheap shots at me indirectly. — S
If all you can do is to insult those who believe... — Pattern-chaser
I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile: — Pattern-chaser
I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms — S
Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.
You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise. — Pattern-chaser
Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's not a fact that unicorns don't exist. It could be a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's not a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason — S
I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist — S
Absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime. — S
Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith. — S
Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist. — S
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.