Insults. Just because you cannot understand – counter – me, lil troll, doesn't in anyway, of itself, imply that I've not "logically defended" my views across thousands of posts. Face the fact: you're not even smart enough, as reflected by your post history, to recognize that you're not smart enough for anything but puerile sophistry and flinging insults – aka "trolling".

you're not even smart enough, — 180 Proof

There's another example of your trolling threads, just to seemingly disparage people, and otherwise add more ad hominem.

We can't help but wonder why you keep doing this. Why are you so emotionally distraught or defensive about your Atheism? (Was Einstein right?)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541158

Nice explanation Sir and I think along the lines that I think might have been the case. It’s tricky too as for a lot of pre history it almost certainly would not have come from one person but a collective thing. It would have started with the idea and developed into a more concrete idea. It may also be true that early humans were more receptive to the idea of some higher power.

I believe religion is an expression of human wants,values and desires. And this can be good or bad.
"God" is an expression of human immortality,justice and creativity,an expression of the human self.
God in short,is a humans practical awareness.

I am rereading, for the nth time (I never finish it), JM Roberts History of the World. He notes in pre history Neanderthal times that there is the first evidence of burial and thus the idea of there being life after death and thus the tap roots of religion. Of course the Neanderthal and homo erectus were to be out evolved by Homo sapiens. But this idea of a life after death as evidenced by burial and when we get to the sophistication of Egyptian burial. Of course the ancient Egyptians had already the concept of gods and the idea that the pharaoh was this ‘god amongst us’ similar to the Roman emperor view but both were men rather than some supernatural entity so although thought of as gods it is not necessarily what we are looking for in terms of understanding albeit that the belief in an afterlife and where we may go and who ‘rules’ is definitely touching on the seeds we are looking for.

Egyptian pharaohs were considered living gods, i.e. they were gods when alive. That generally wasn't so with Roman emperors, who usually were deified (and worshiped) after death, at least in the Western or Latin Empire. In some cases, an emperor would allow himself to be worshipped as a god before death, generally at the request of the prominent citizens of a particular city or region, but in most instances the emperor himself wasn't worshipped while alive though his genius and numen might be. The cult of the emperors was different in the West than in the East, as deification during life was more a feature of the Eastern Empire, the provinces of which had more of a history of ruler-worship. So, for example, Diocletian required divine honors while alive. With the coming of the Christian Empire, emperors were no longer deified but were, of course, considered emperors by grant of God.

I think we really don't have any idea what "not existing" is since we exist and becoming nothing is the strangest concept a mammal can contemplate. So we fill the sky with parent figures whom we believe loves us and try to live our lives as if we were still in the freshness of our childhood. You were never closer to "nothingness" then right now, whatever it might be

:rofl:

Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it. — Tom Storm

It's not clear that this is the case; or that "making shit up is easier than study"; "or that "people want to be told what to think," and such are the case.

People are cunning, and this needs to be accounted for somehow.

People are cunning — baker

Cunning implies deceitful, doesn't it? Could they not just be smart and complex?

When I wrote that 'Religions are social clubs...' etc - I was taking a particular line that seems to apply to many, but not all folk. I have friends who are sincere believers (with strong mystical tendencies) who are unusually helpful to others and not materialistic.

It’s an interesting thing. Not to generalise but most people like to think they can determine their own destiny. Be their own person. Not be controlled or ruled by others. Of course the majority of us are social animals. The family unit has been argued to be a human thing. Of course COVID-19 has put the spot light right on that. Yet it is the case, and in our social groups we can follow norms. We do our best to fit in, to follow the rules. In modern society and in modern civilisation we have little choice. Of course there are pockets of differences, at times that impact an entire country. Some of them as big as you can get. So yes free will is not in the gift of all. Communities can and do have a strong influence. Not all or maybe few have the best intentions of the many, but look after the few. But it’s a strange thing to concede that to a higher power. And I mean a higher power that is not worldly, at least not as far as modern science can confirm. For sure there are things that we do not know, things we cannot know, things that will forever be beyond the ken, irrespective of how supra intelligent we evolve to become. But being ourselves, our true selves, and not giving that up to any uncertain and potentially capricious power seems intuitively wrong though it looks we are almost certainly wired to seek it or need it. Strange indeed.

I agree we shouldn't give up our power to anyone or anything.
But personal religion is sometimes an expression or symbol of something powerful or just,something karmic. Like believing in the future positively. An expression of hope. Mystics go a step further and believe in a union with God or even becoming a God.

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God. — baker

I have often thought this too, but for different reasons. Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it. — Tom Storm

This is laughable. Do you know any religious people? I spent some time in the southern USA a few years ago. Down there, they wear their religion on their sleeves more than people in the north. I was always moved by how big a influence religion and God had in their lives. You can see they look to them for guidance on a daily basis. It is unpremeditated and sincere.

Cunning implies deceitful, doesn't it? Could they not just be smart and complex? — Tom Storm

It's a tricky word, and I used it for that purpose.

Not everyone is like the 'Muricans.

Not everyone is like the 'Muricans. — baker

But I think we can all agree they should be.

Thank heavens I don't eat or drink while at the computer. Otherwise I'd have a lot to clean up after just now.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ― Albert Einstein — 3017amen

Despite his genius I guess Albert didn’t know that sound can’t travel in a vacuum. And if it’s a choice between fanatics, I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic over the ‘I believe whatever sky father (ordinary guy wearing robes and funny hat) tells me’ fanatic, because history shows that the latter is capable of any atrocity.

Despite his genius I guess Albert didn’t know that sound can’t travel in a vacuum. And if it’s a choice between fanatics, I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic over the ‘I believe whatever sky father (ordinary guy wearing robes and funny hat) tells me’ fanatic. — praxis

Despite him not being a philosopher, probably much like you, he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. However, his common sense observations speaks volumes to the cognitive dysfunction/dissonance, as we've seen on this site with the many trolling atheists... :razz:

I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations.

... he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. — 3017amen

You contend that only a religion could inform him of that? And please exercise better grammar. I couldn’t interpret your double negative.

I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations. — praxis

I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic — praxis

Because you said the forgoing, in that you would ' take reason/science based fanatic'; was it unreasonable to conclude you were an atheist?

he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. — 3017amen
You contend that only a religion could inform him of that? — praxis

The short answer to that short question is, I would contend that both science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

I think we can understand the ‘adoption’ from the family / community from young of a ‘strict’ religion. It can take courage and / or intelligence to ‘buck the trend’. If people are given the time and opportunity (and to be honest in this day and age that is far from easy - mobile phones begone) is there that ‘voice’ or ‘feeling’ that makes you think there is this ‘supernatural entity’ out there that can help / hinder you? Of course certain individuals throughout history have ‘felt this presence, voice or whatever’ to assume it is from such an entity. It does not seem though that this is common place. Of course if you already have a belief it will be natural to ‘feel it’. Faith after all is very powerful.

I don’t want to derail my own post by putting another ‘obvious’ question (better for another discussion) but in the way I set it out, without influence or pre conceived notions or influences, and with the sort of time we rarely have (the mountain mystic) can you say you would ‘feel’ the existence of this supernatural entity? Your own guardian angel (but this is different anyway as it is your own self). Independently I would think not. But as ever look forward to hearing your own views, in particular if you have had your own experience that is not influenced by others.

I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations.
— praxis

I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic
— praxis

Because you said the forgoing, in that you would ' take reason/science based fanatic'; was it unreasonable to conclude you were an atheist? — 3017amen

I’m not going to even dignify that with an answer, and in any case it doesn’t matter.

he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. — 3017amen
You contend that only a religion could inform him of that?
— praxis

The short answer to that short question is, I would contend that both science and religion are not mutually exclusive. — 3017amen

It feels like you’re being evasive. There’s no need for that, I’m totally harmless. Anyway, you mentioned consciousness transcending logic. Perhaps you could rephrase that because your meaning is unclear. Obviously consciousness doesn’t require logic, but I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say.

Planetary bodies emitting sound that we can hear isn’t a good example of a shared truth between science and religion.

I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations.
— praxis

I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic
— praxis

Because you said the forgoing, in that you would ' take reason/science based fanatic'; was it unreasonable to conclude you were an atheist? — 3017amen
I’m not going to even dignify that with an answer, and in any case it doesn’t matter. — praxis

Ahhem. You are the one who brought it up sir. Are you saying it is unreasonable to conclude you are arguing for atheism? I don't get it. Here's the quote: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ― Albert Einstein

And you said, in paraphrase, you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist. So which is it my friend? Sorry but I'm calling you out on that :razz:

he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. — 3017amen
You contend that only a religion could inform him of that?
— praxis

The short answer to that short question is, I would contend that both science and religion are not mutually exclusive. — 3017amen
It feels like you’re being evasive. There’s no need for that, I’m totally harmless. Anyway, you mentioned consciousness transcending logic. Perhaps you could rephrase that because your meaning is unclear. Obviously consciousness doesn’t require logic, but I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say.

Planetary bodies emitting sound that we can hear isn’t a good example of a shared truth between science and religion. — praxis

I answered a short question with a short answer. What more do you want? Alternatively, you said consciousness doesn't require logic, what does that mean? In other words, are you referring to explaining the nature of consciousness itself, or in the description of its function(s)? Once we identify exactly what we're referring to there, only then can we have meaningful discussion.

you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist — 3017amen

Sure, what’s the worst they’ve done? I’m really asking because nothing terrible comes to mind.

you said consciousness doesn't require logic, what does that mean? — 3017amen

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic.

you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist — 3017amen
Sure, what’s the worst they’ve done? I’m really asking because nothing terrible comes to mind. — praxis

Depends on the context. Generally speaking, extremism is usually not good. Otherwise, would you say a fanatical atheist is similar to a religious extremist or a fanatical fundamentalist?

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic. — praxis

Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder?

you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist
— 3017amen

Sure, what’s the worst they’ve done? I’m really asking because nothing terrible comes to mind.
— praxis

Depends on the context. — 3017amen

Daniel Dennett alone in a drawing room holding a candelabra.

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic.
— praxis

Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder? — 3017amen

Animals don’t have the capability to reason or assess according to strict rules of validity. In your case, who knows.

Daniel Dennett alone in a drawing room holding a candelabra. — praxis

Someone said he looks good in a speedo, but that's not my thing :joke:

Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic.
— praxis

Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder? — 3017amen
Animals don’t have the capability to reason or assess according to strict rules of validity. In your case, who knows. — praxis

Sorry, I don't know what that means. You seem to be saying you and Daniel have a logical explanation for consciousness... .

Oh well, I hope at least you don't share in his so-called logical choice of sunbathing attire :razz:

This is laughable. Do you know any religious people? I spent some time in the southern USA a few years ago. — T Clark

Not laughable - geography. I live in Australia and know well many religious people. A close friend is a Catholic priest. It describes the scenario here for many, but I never said 'all'.

Nevertheless Southern fundamentalism aside, I suspect my description of religion as primarily a social group is largely accurate elsewhere. I have certainly heard Matt Dillahunty argue this - he's a former Southern Baptist and now atheist educator in Texas.

Religion isn't the only belief based crutch we have, but it's the one that gets most heat Almost everything in our society is in some way or form belief based. All belief based structures, material, psychological, or societal are built around the idea of comfort and the comforting.