The cat leaves with the tail between its legs ;)I'd play somemore, but the rationality of this converstation just went bye bye. — Mayor of Simpleton
Stranger still... Not only can they find no rational basis for the belief in God, they demand that one is given, and if one doesn't give it then:It's a strange situation. The atheist can find no rational basis in the belief in a god, and the believer accepts faith as a gift. — Cavacava
Combined with all the allusions to North Korea, totalitarianism and the like. This goes to show one thing - namely that the problem most atheists have with theism isn't an intellectual one (does God exist or not?) but rather an emotional and a political one - a problem of the will as Pascal would say. If there is a God - then certain things which they don't like follow. Not giving them a reason for your own belief in God will merely lead to them unmasking themselves. They're not asking for a reason because honestly they want to consider the question of is there or is there not a God - no - they want a reason to tear it down. If you give them reasons, they can fight back - but if you don't give them reasons, suddenly they are left powerless, and in that desperation will reveal that it's not intellect that is driving them, but the will - it's really about the ramifications of theism - the emotional and political ones especially.Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. As I see it there is much to be discussed because if not there may be no discussion allowed in the name of this sort of totalitarian invisible proxy of constraint and censure
Is that really so? I don't think so at all - I think quite the opposite in fact. If we look at how things are, we see that people pay lip-service to God, by putting, for example "In God we Trust" on their money. But do they really trust in God? Doesn't seem like it to me at all. Do they put insurance clauses specifically precluding God's interference from liability because they want a reason to save money and to look good or because they really believe in God's interference? Do people call themselves Christians because they really follow the teachings and morality given in the Bible, or because they want to be seen and thought about well? In fact, I'd go as far as say that the world (really meaning the Western world) has never been farther from God than it is today, and it's never been close to God for most of its history either.The theist position pervades western culture right down to its foundations, insurance clauses specifically preclude god's interference from their liability, he is on US capitol tender. — Cavacava
What are these indications of mass belief that you see? And what's the evidence that hermits go nuts? Some monks are hermits for very long periods of time - years upon years. And they are perfectly sane.Beyond the physical indications of mass belief there is its effect on what, how, even when we think, which I don't think any of us can fully escape (hermits go nuts, always been that way) the way it has affected our system of valuation, and valuation I think goes to the core/origin of rationality. — Cavacava
I agree. Either God or Mammon, but it has to be one of them.I personally don't think man can live without some sort of religion, even if that is a hallowed routine, that one faithfully practices. — Cavacava
Most likely.God is more interested how men live their life — Cavacava
Maybe being in troth with your own beliefs is more important than what is believed. — Cavacava
If one who lives in a Christian culture goes up to God’s house, the house of the true God, with a true conception of God, with knowledge of God and prays—but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in a idolatrous land prays with the total passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest on the image of an idol; where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God, although he worships an idol. The other prays in untruth to the true God and therefore really worships an idol — Soren Kierkegaard
s that really so? I don't think so at all - I think quite the opposite in fact. If we look at how things are, we see that people pay lip-service to God, by putting, for example "In God we Trust" on their money. But do they really trust in God? Doesn't seem like it to me at all. Do they put insurance clauses specifically precluding God's interference from liability because they want a reason to save money and to look good or because they really believe in God's interference? Do people call themselves Christians because they really follow the teachings and morality given in the Bible, or because they want to be seen and thought about well? In fact, I'd go as far as say that the world (really meaning the Western world) has never been farther from God than it is today, and it's never been close to God for most of its history either.
I've gone to visit the Eastern Orthodox monks for a short time on Mount Athos, and I have visited and discussed with hermits there, including some monks who had returned from being hermits to living at the monasteries. There's absolutely nothing wrong or off with these people. Modern psychological theory, for social reasons, has transformed the desire to be alone or the desire for seclusion into a sort of mental illness. Many other ideas are associated with mental illness as well - for example chastity. But many of these people actually seem quite strong mentally, and they are very kind and otherwise can be very sociable and compassionate. I was actually impressed at their compassion and understanding of subtle social issues and cues...Hey, I never met a hermit, have you? If you have literally met a hermit and he made sense to you, then clearly I am wrong, but in everything I've read, they all seem off a bit to me. — Cavacava
Yes, but in a democracy, the 80% control the nation's future.80% pay lip service to their faith, but 20% are ardent, in absolute numbers that's a lot of ardent people — Cavacava
Yes, but in a democracy, the 80% control the nation's future.
It's a rehtorical argument made to cause commitment to God without considering truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No problem, you're welcome.Thanks about the hermits — Cavacava
Yes but the absolute majority doesn't make sense to me to begin with in a country as large as America. It seems to me as representation of the country by geographical area has to be taken into account, otherwise a few urban regions like New York will swallow up most people (as they have already done) and then this majority would rule tyrannically and uncaringly over all other smaller regions, draining resources and people all to themselves - and forcing everyone to become like them and adopt their values. The United Kingdom has this problem, where London, Manchester and other such large cities are drawing all the resources and sucking up all the population, thus leaving the other regions forgotten. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote merely because of the progressive landslides from California, New York and so forth. But the republicans represent America much better than the Democrats do considering the geographical area that voted. I think the Republican victory is fair - fairer than Democracy as usually understood. Anyway, I think with Plato that democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government if we exclude tyranny and dictatorship.Well in the case of the last election here in the states, 279 votes were all that counted, HRC received 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump, but she lost. The GOP out strategized the DEMS, no doubt about it. The majority supposedly picks the candidates, but as we saw last election here in the US (that bastion of Democracy) the primary process can/was fixed in favor of HRC. I like Italy's M5S decision to have its primary on line for its 137K members to vote, this seems fairer, if it can control the process. — Cavacava
Maybe - but they are generally kept at bay and isolated by the majority.Those who are most ardent about their religion tend to show up and they voice their feelings — Cavacava
Either this, or the 80% simply use such tactics - putting in God We Trust on money etc. in order to contain the 20%. Just like in the old PF, where atheists dominated by and large, they had a philosophy of religion section, to quote SLX if I remember correctly, in order to keep God topics contained, so they don't spill over in other sections. In other words, it was better for them pragmatically speaking to have a section than to have no section at all.I think society deep down realizes that it is better off with religion than without it, in my opinion. — Cavacava
Why do you assume that a mature society wouldn't need religious normative values to operate in an orderly fashion?Or at least society does not seem to have matured to the point where it can operate in an orderly fashion for any extended period of time without Religious normative values — Cavacava
Only A1's death come with a hope. — Cavacava
I agree. Either God or Mammon, but it has to be one of them. — Agustino
I think with Plato that democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government if we exclude tyranny and dictatorship — Agustino
Where am I saying that? One always has faith - that's my point. And the faith is either in God or Mammon. Now the faith doesn't have to be conscious. One can be an atheist and yet have faith in the true God, just as one can have his eyes set worshipping an idol, and yet in truth he would be worshipping the one true God.This is falsely dichotomous, it seems to me. Are you really saying that all atheists, or Buddhists or Taoists for that matter, worship Mammon in some way? — Thorongil
Yeah, capitalism will morph into corporatism - that's no good as far as I'm concerned. And if that doesn't happen, and instead the corporation will end - then there will be a massive war, and whoever emerges out of it unscathed will be a huge victor.I think Fredric Jameson is correct in saying we are in last stages of capitalism. He suggests that we consider possible Utopias as models. — Cavacava
This is utopian and simply impossible considering human nature. Men left to their own devices - in other words the removal of discipline - will always lead towards social chaos. This has nothing to do with maturity. Maturity applies to individuals. A mature individual doesn't need external discipline anymore. Think analogically to gas molecules. Gas will always spread evenly in the container, even though each molecule doesn't aim for this. So too, human society will move towards chaos if there is no restraint. Not because there is something wrong with individuals (or because they aim for this), but rather because the probabilities are crooked, at a social, not at an individual level.I don't think a mature society needs to control its population, in the same way we have to had to control our population — Cavacava
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. …
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.