Over 75% a philosophical domains posit God as a customary or standard axiom or criteria. You know, it's all part of philosophy and philosophical discourse, a human condition thing.

Is this a rant?

Over 75% a philosophical domains posit God as a customary or standard axiom or criteria. You know, it's all part of philosophy and philosophical discourse, a human condition thing. — 3017amen

Are you trying to say that over 75% of philosophical domains (whatever that means) is wrong? Or it is right. You did not make a point, you just quoted a statistic (which I highly doubt has to do with any counting or measuring of the area of domains of philosophy).

Are you trying to say that over 75% of philosophical domains (whatever that means) is wrong? Or it is right. You did not make a point, you just quoted a statistic (which I highly doubt has to do with any counting or measuring of the area of domains of — god must be atheist

Really? God is 'posited' in ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, philosophy of religion, epistemology, contemporary philosophy and even logic (ontological and cosmological arguments).

The point is, like it or not, the concept of God has a significant impact on philosophy itself.

In all seriousness, I'm really confused about why an atheist would reside in or feel comfortable in and place like America. Wouldn't they be better served in a country that didn't care about or value the existence of God/Christianity and/or a country that didn't value the concept of God?

I mean I'm trying to understand the significance of the OP. Is it more or less an emotional purging of sorts or a rant, or even a political statement seeking change, you think?

I could stand corrected, but I'm wondering that say, certain communist countries would be more suitable for the Atheist ideology...

In all seriousness, I'm really confused about why an atheist would reside in or feel comfortable in and place like America. Wouldn't they be better served in a country that didn't care about or value the existence of God/Christianity and/or a country that didn't value the concept of God? — 3017amen

You're right about that. I surmise you'd opine, but I don't attribute the following to you, I only want to say that in my opinion you could say this: Atheists are better suited to the comfort of Hellfire, where they can freely mingle with their kindred spirits.

But wait! There is more!

Why did the first Europeans from Christian countries come to America? Would they not be more comfortable in their own countries, instead of trying to make a life in a continent full of heathens, who worshipped idols?

If you can answer that, you can answer why an atheist would come to America.

Why did the first Europeans from Christian countries come to America? Would they not be more comfortable in their own countries, instead of trying to make a life in a continent full of heathens, who worshipped idols?

If you can answer that, you can answer why an atheist would come to America. — god must be atheist

I think part of it had to do with religious dogma. That's one reason why in political philosophy here in America, we have separation of church and state ideals.

Since we still have in God we Trust on our currency; value Christian philosophy, freedom to express other Religious belief systems, so on and so forth, I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level.

Christianity is not going to change, here in America, like it or not...

Your argument, is that Atheists should go home because they are outnumbered.

So are blondes, you know.

And blue-eyed people.

And Black people and people who speak little English.

Rich people are waaaaay outnumbered.

Virtuous people are outnumbered.

Baptists are outnumbered.

Ministers, preachers, and bell-ringers, choir leaders, and ladies who prepare coffee in the basement for the congregation to enjoy after service are also each outnumbered.

So if you follow your own reasoning correctly, maybe all these people should go somewhere else, since the criteria to go is getting outnumbered.

Christianity is not going to change, here in America, like it or not... — 3017amen

This is a statement of belief. Reasonably speaking, neither of us knows whether Christianity is totally here to stay or it will dwindle to count people who are outnumbered by non-Christians. You can't state an empirical opinion as fact.

I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level. — 3017amen

If your criteria is NOT being outnumbered, but feeling uncomfortable, then, pardon the truth, it is you who should pack up and get out. I feel totally comfortable here, arguing with theists and Christians. You are the one who is uncomfortable with my presence, that's the real reason you want me to leave.

So you stated two reasons why I should leave: I am outnumbered, and I feel uncomfortable.

In fact, you are also outnumbered, and you indeed feel uncomfortable whereas I don't.

So in all rights, if you decide to stop being a hypocrite, you will pack up your things and go.

that's the real reason you want me to leave. — god must be atheist

Oh please don't take it personal. You are certainly more than welcome to argue your Atheism. It's just that here in America it's more of a losing battle for you.

It's just that it seems more practical that say in a communist country, where nihilism and those kinds of ideologies are more prevalent, it
would make you feel more comfortable.

It's all good no worries.

1. If you have a suggestion for the moderators, then you can message them. Publicly attacking a segment of people who visit this forum in one unedited and bolded paragraph is not inviting a conversation, it is a rant. That is NOT philosophy.

2. The philosophy of religion has a long history. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
Read here if you are interested. They are not hijacking philosophy, and they have their own section on the forum.

3. If you don't like people posting philosophy of religion, then don't partake in them. If they come in your threads which have nothing to do with religion, then feel free to not respond.

I'm speaking common sense — JerseyFlight

No. You are not. You are speaking your anger and frustration that you cannot control what other people think and do. That is not philosophy. That is not common sense. I do not know what happened to you to be so angry and controlling, but you need to learn to deal with that before you try to solve anyone else's problems.

Publicly attacking a segment of people — Philosophim

??? Poor Christians?

The philosophy of religion — Philosophim

The philosophy of religion is a pseudo-category of philosophy.
See Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, by John Loftus.

If you don't like people posting philosophy of religion, then don't partake in them. — Philosophim

Please keep in mind, I don't have a problem with Spinoza or Jefferson discoursing on a philosophical God. My complaint is specifically about cults, organized religion. I believe these non-philosophical superstitions belong in their own fairy tale volt so they don't keep on cluttering the main forum page.

You are speaking your anger and frustration that you cannot control what other people think and do. That is not philosophy. — Philosophim

This is a poisoning of the well fallacy. Even if my post was based on anger, which it is not, this would not stand as a refutation. Maybe back in the 1800's the premises of religion still had some kind of validity, but now we have Hadron Colliders and Smart Phones, time to start living in reality friend.

My words were not an invitation to discussion. They were a voice from the community that you might want to remember in your behavior going forward. If the mods remove this topic, you will have a reason apart from theirs to mull over.

My words were not an invitation to discussion. — Philosophim

This is massively authoritarian, and a contradiction of your own program. I can indeed put this in simpler terms. I am against Nazis because they unleashed mass violence and suffering on the earth, I am against organized religion for the exact same reason. That you would even stoop to defend it is a bearing on your own character. Religion is not innocent. Let me repeat that, religion is not innocent, it is a dangerous and proliferating ideology that leads to massive violence and suppression, including the suppression of philosophy. Were Galileo or Nietzsche on this forum they would side with me.

It's just that here in America it's more of a losing battle for you. — 3017amen

It really isn't. Even in the USA, Christianity is on the decline, having dropped 25% in the last 30 years. And good riddance to it, honestly. Islam... That's the bugger to watch out for.

Nah, it's not going anywhere soon. The good news is that folks are becoming a bit more sophisticated with their views about religious dogma and such. Accordingly, they are finding alternative religion's as a means to the same end. Religion is just man's way of interacting with one Deity. And it's been around forever.

I think the only bugger might be the paradox of nihilism. But it's all good, it's kind of like the unity of opposites principle, you know, like Theism and A-theism. You can't have one without the other. Kind of like volitional existence.

A Christian who develops cancer doesn't spend his days and nights in prayer, he runs to science in hopes of prolonging his life. This is reality, the other is empty, abstract ideology. — JerseyFlight

I guess to this some Theists may say that they do not believe in medicine or going to the doctor, but their "cult," the Christian Scientist Church, would heal through prayer.

I also think that Unicorns and Fairies are important nonetheless. You never know if you are in a simulation and in a simulation, anything is possible, even seeing a Unicorn or a Fairy.

Folks, if you have not by now recognized it, 3017amen is not an honest participant in these forums. He lies, evades, dissembles, and hangs on like an unwanted rash. I find him toxic. Be advised.

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

Since we still have in God we Trust on our currency; value Christian philosophy, freedom to express other Religious belief systems, so on and so forth, I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level. — 3017amen

Still? That slogan first started appearing on mammon here in the 1950's, as did the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Somehow, our Great Republic managed to survive without it until then. Perhaps, though, there weren't as many Christians around before the Eisenhower administration as after it.

Given what Jesus is said to have said about money and wealth, one would think the use of the slogan on currency would be more suggestive of a lack of Christians than an abundance of them.

But I tend to agree that Christianity here, where fundamentalism thrives, is a more virulent form of that religion than elsewhere, even in primarily Catholic countries where that older, wiser and perhaps more weary form of it is prevalent; and that its disregard of virtually any appeal to thought will likely insure it lives on for quite some time.

I don't know if the OP is directed at debates regarding God, which I think futile but arguably a part of philosophy. It seems directed at discussion of the doctrines of particular religions. I personally think that philosophy of religion, if it considers the place and meaning of ritual and doctrine in what is called religion, might include consideration of those doctrines--but not of course preaching them.

3017amen seems to represent himself as a kind of Christian apologist. He calls himself a Christian ethicist. Anyone unfortunate enough to have read his posts recognizes he is no Christian at all. If I had to coin a phrase that in my opinion captures his multi-layered abuse of civility, it would be Christian Nazi. In more or less the same sense that a wolf in sheep's skin is a sheep. With apologies to wolves for the comparison.

Christian ethicist. — tim wood

Christian Existentialist.

Do your homework Timmy!

You're correct. My bad. In any case, not you a Christian in any sense I ma familiar with, and I'm pretty familiar.

But I tend to agree that Christianity here, where fundamentalism thrives — Ciceronianus the White

Yep. There are those who say that religion gives Deity or God a bad name. Likewise, in Christianity, I'm not convinced Jesus mandated religion.

He did seem to 'mandate' love and pacifism though.

Christianity is not going to change, here in America, like it or not... — 3017amen

There is actual research. From the first citation:

The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining — Pew

You were saying?

Given what Jesus is said to have said about money and wealth, one would think the use of the slogan on currency would be more suggestive of a lack of Christians than an abundance of them. — Ciceronianus the White

He's going to take a shot, here it comes -- it's in the net! Goal for Ciceronianus!

From Wiki on Christian existentialism. (Can we find 3017 anywhere in this?)

One of the major premises of Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism entails calling the masses back to a more genuine form of Christianity. This form is often identified with some notion of Early Christianity, which mostly existed during the first three centuries after Christ's crucifixion. Beginning with the Edict of Milan, which was issued by Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 313, Christianity enjoyed a level of popularity among Romans and later among other Europeans. And yet Kierkegaard asserted that by the 19th century, the ultimate meaning of New Testament Christianity (love, cf. agape, mercy and loving-kindness) had become perverted, and Christianity had deviated considerably from its original threefold message of grace, humility, and love.

Another major premise of Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism involves Kierkegaard's conception of God and Love. For the most part, Kierkegaard equates God with Love.[3] Thus, when a person engages in the act of loving, he is in effect achieving an aspect of the divine. Kierkegaard also viewed the individual as a necessary synthesis of both finite and infinite elements. Therefore, when an individual does not come to a full realization of his infinite side, he is said to be in despair. For many contemporary Christian theologians, the notion of despair can be viewed as sin. However, to Kierkegaard, a man sinned when he was exposed to this idea of despair and chose a path other than one in accordance with God's will.

A final major premise of Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism entails the systematic undoing of evil acts. Kierkegaard asserted that once an action had been completed, it should be evaluated in the face of God, for holding oneself up to divine scrutiny was the only way to judge one's actions. Because actions constitute the manner in which something is deemed good or bad, one must be constantly conscious of the potential consequences of his actions. Kierkegaard believed that the choice for goodness ultimately came down to each individual. Yet Kierkegaard also foresaw the potential limiting of choices for individuals who fell into

It appears the survey only relates to young adults, which kind of makes sense.

If one were to try to make a case for atheism, you would want to look at it in a more comprehensive way, including whether atheism itself is on the rise... . To that end, I don't see that happening.

Like I said, if I were an atheist, it would make sense to move to some third world communist country...

It appears the survey only relates to young adults, which kind of makes sense. — 3017amen

It also appears you only clicked on one of the links.

While the drop in Christian affiliation is particularly pronounced among young adults, it is occurring among Americans of all ages. — The one you missed

Interesting.

1. Why is the percentage drop not commensurate with atheism? In onother words people are not moving toward atheism as an alternative.
2. Why is atheism so low, comparatively?
3. Other Faith's are on the rise it seems... .

Of course I'm not sure whether a battle of the surveys would be convincing either way, you know, kind of like climate change scientists.

And that takes us back to the OP. I'm having fun with the discussion, but his premise seems to be based on either politics or an emotional rant of some sort. In other words, 'I'm a disgruntled Atheist and I want the world to know.' Whaa my puddy hurt's LOL

I'd say man up or get out!

In @Banno his post he argued that philosophy about God using scriptural revelation as premise is bad. And I'm in agreement with that. From what I have seen from these threads they haven't done that. Perhaps the philosophy used in them is abysmal but then you might want to show these people that.

If that is a "waste of time" as you so often say then take @Philosophim his advice and not partake in them. Aside from that the admins have sort of given them a single thread so all of this should be settled.