Whereas all I see in your posts is hostility to anything religious, — Wayfarer

I am hostile to all who have given up thinking to be a sheeple to a genocidal son murdering prick of a god whose religion grew with inquisitions due to not having moral arguments to convert with.
If your not then your moral sense is defective as you are supporting a homophobic and misogynous religion.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

I just haven't experience their perspectives personally. — MacGuffin

That is good news. Nice to know you are not homophobic and misogynous or can think a real prick of a god is somehow good.

I think it our duty to fight such immoral thinking.

If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Regards
DL

I can’t help thinking that in the past this has led to some pretty tragic situations. — Brett

True, but if you look at history, you will see that most of the wars have been religious wars. Sure, that was still a person starting it but for religious reasons more than political reasons.

Regards
DL

What it amounts to is nothing more than a belief? — Brett

True. A belief I am happy to do apologetics for while Christians just run away instead of trying to do apologetics that they would lose if the topic has any moral implications.

Have you ever tried to get a religionist involved in a moral discursion?

They run like beaten dogs.

Regards
DL

I wouldn't say intelligent person. Someone who actually believes in a lie of such improbably fantastical nature would be termed much more aptly as delusional than intelligent perse. Creative, perhaps, but delusional all the same. — Frotunes

I agree but did not want to put that as an O.P. because the theists would just run away as is their habit when they cannot do apologetics for their god/delusion.

Regards
DL

A person who has no faith in the supernatural has too much faith in Science.... RMC — halo

Faith without facts is for fools.

Thor is the only real god. Prove me wrong.
That idiocy is what faith leads to.

Regards
DL

I disagree. I doubt science, with its limits, primitiveness and cultural factors. But that is a lot different than believing in a delusion like the existence of God/gods as the religions fantasize. — Frotunes

Science, I think, recognize their own shortcomings and at least tread lightly till they are sure of their hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Regards
DL

Actually we can have somewhat justified beliefs about things we do not know. It is not binary, even in science. There are degrees of evidence and models that we use that imply things that we have not yet demonstrated, and then individuals can know things that they cannot prove to others, and more. — Coben

I can agree with this.
You are talking about faith based on facts and a logic trail.
Religious faith is just based on hope without any facts.

Regards
DL

You are talking about faith based on facts and a logic trail. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So is love. Though later facts may back up the original love.
So is our faith in memory. Which seems justified, but by memory. So, we wake up in bed, and use faith to decide we will, in the main trust our memories.
We use faith in learning, in fact telling people they will succeed increases their success even if the person saying knows they are poor students.
We use faith in many steps in our logical reasoning. There are qualia that say we checked our argument enough. Qualia that say it makes sense. Qualia checks that tell us we would have noticed if the other person was right, and since we received no warnings then we must have been both logical and right.
All the people who have strong intuitions use faith. Of course to convince people they may need later to demonstrate evidence. But police, doctors, top poker players, soldiers and many others use intuition - iow not able to know why they want to make a certain choice - and some of them are better than others at intuition. It is not guessing.
We all rely on intution, here in our bodies, in time, with limited knowledge. Some people call intuition faith.

And yes, some people can be bad at it.

We use faith in learning, in fact telling people they will succeed increases their success even if the person saying knows they are poor students. — Coben

I think you are misusing the word faith.

If a student is poor in math and has not begun a logic trail in his mind that recognizes how 2 + 2 = 4, throw as much faith at him that you like, but he will never grasp math without logic and reason which are anathema to faith.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Regards
DL

So is love. — Coben

Seriously?
That would be stalking, not sharing love with another.

If you share love through faith, then it cannot be a true love as true love must have works, deeds and reciprocity.

Regards
DL

Seriously?
That would be stalking, not sharing love with another. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Stalking is a set of unwelcome behaviors. Feeling love for someone is, well, a feeling. Feeling like this is a person to be with. And some people are obviously better at this non-rational reaction to other people than others.eot

If you share love through faith, then it cannot be a true love as true love must have works, deeds and reciprocity. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I am saying that love is a kind of faith, especially in the beginnig when you have nto spent a lot of time with the other. And actually I think love is underneath works, deeds and reciprocity. Parents' love for children, even romantic love. Yes, of course those are good parts of a relationship, but the love is underneath and causal. And not rational.

I think you are misusing the word faith.

If a student is poor in math and has not begun a logic trail in his mind that recognizes how 2 + 2 = 4, throw as much faith at him that you like, but he will never grasp math without logic and reason which are anathema to faith — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And he will never grasp math without intuition. And the great mathematicians allow criteria like elegance lead them to examine certain lines. I am using faith to mean processes that are non-rational.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.” — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's what he, one individual thought, at one time. Much of the rest of the time he presented reasoned arguments. But in any case, it's not much evidence of anything.

In answer to your question, an intelligent person should remain open to all possibilities.

a genocidal son murdering prick of a god — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The irony is that your dislike for this god is so personal, as if he does actually exist.

My other point is that it sounds like you might accept the idea of the supernatural if it behaved the way you want. Your anger is directed at the destruction carried out by religion and the hypocrisy, but that doesn’t mean the supernatural is impossible, just that you don’t like it.

Have you ever tried to get a religionist involved in a moral discursion?

They run like beaten dogs. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Actually, I’ve found them to argue as heatedly as you do.

And not rational. — Coben

That was what your reply was, yes.

Loves takes two as one cannot have true love alone.

Regards
DL

But in any case, it's not much evidence of anything. — Coben

It is evidence of how one must think to believe B.S.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

but that doesn’t mean the supernatural is impossible, just that you don’t like it. — Brett

You are correct that it is the effect of such stupid beliefs that I dislike.

Gnostic thinking on this is shown in many movies that show that if there is one supernatural realm or god, there could be as many as fractal math. Gods over god over gods.

It is an endless cycle of gods, which is stupid.

Regards
DL

Actually, I’ve found them to argue as heatedly as you do. — Brett

Show one instance.

Regards
DL

Show one instance. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You’re kidding, right? You want me to list people I know and then prove their existence to you?

And not rational.
— Coben

That was what your reply was, yes. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What is this a playground with clever comebacks?

Loves takes two as one cannot have true love alone.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why not try actually responding to my post instead of just stating something without connecting it to the points I made. What you wrote here does not contradict what I wrote.

Humanity centered religions, good? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Gnostics are dualists, seeing ‘this fallen world’ as a trap, and all matter evil and a source of misery, the only escape from which is gained by asceticism and denial of the world. Nothing about traditional gnosticism was 'human-centred' - in fact that's the main reason they lost the battle with orthodoxy. Although I suspect that this is one of those conversations where facts don't matter, so I'll butt out.

although, I can't resist adding, that from a Christian viewpoint, the gnostics were fakes to begin with. So someone who calls himself a 'gnostic Christian bishop', who doesn't even understand gnosticism, is then a fraudulent replica of a fake. A fake fake.

Gnostics are dualists, seeing ‘this fallen world’ as a trap, and all matter evil and a source of misery, the only escape from which is gained by asceticism and denial of the world. Nothing about traditional gnosticism was 'human-centred' - in fact that's the main reason they lost the battle with orthodoxy. Although I suspect that this is one of those conversations where facts don't matter, so I'll butt out. — Wayfarer

He has said here or in another thread that his is talking rather than warring with other religions and this talking comes from his hostility. So it is a theological and religious fight, if carried out with words. IOW it is very hard for him to back down even on small points. And yes, I have noticed over the years that he is very selective about what counts as gnosticism. Even presenting quotes from the very gnostics he quotes that go against his position never leads to a concession.

I think he’s an atheist troll.

I think he’s an atheist troll. — Wayfarer

Oh, sure, show everyone how much more clear and concise you are than me.

Have you ever tried to get a religionist involved in a moral discursion?

They run like beaten dogs.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

Actually, I’ve found them to argue as heatedly as you do. — Brett

Same here. They are fierce defenders of pro-life, of defunct sessational anti-demarcation of globalized neo-disciplinarian oblivion, of morality as such in the first place, of the original sin and free will, of god's moral infallibility, etc. Their moral crusades churn-crunch opposition. Or so they hope.

In the OP you said the gods or God does not have good moral fiber. Why do you say that? Which religion are you talking about?

Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

As far as I'm concerned, it is a matter of the extent to which the belief is prevalent and the self-reflection a person conducts. For instance, it would be just as foolish to refuse to reassess your atheism as it would be to refuse to reevaluate your religious beliefs. Indeed, I would intuitvely attribute higher intelligence to a religious person who is capable of reflecting his/her beliefs than to an over-confident atheist. However, beyond my subjective intuitions concerning the matter, some credible studies (http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1197.pdf) have been conducted, and indeed low levels of intelligence are associated with high levels of fundamentalism, whereas they display a modest association with more diluted (e.g. no active practice of religious belief) forms of belief. I suppose it is thereby conclusive, statistically speaking, that it really depends on the way a person does or does not reflect and integrate his/her (dis)belief in a supernatural being.