That was exactly the point I was making. — Apollodorus
The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods — Apollodorus
When you wish to make a point supported by a citation, it's both wise and polite to use at least some of the language of the citation. As it is, affiliation is not evidence of belief. I will concede that in many cases it is, but I still disqualify your claim as unsupported.According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated. — Apollodorus
And "fluroush"? — tim wood
As it is, affiliation is not evidence of belief. I will concede that in many cases it is, but I still disqualify your claim as unsupported. — tim wood
Sorry, I missed this. Let's try this: philosophy is about things that are, notwithstanding the effort of determining for the purpose of thinking just what the things that are, are. Philosophy of, on the other hand, is about things that are not. The philosophy aspect - that makes it a philosophy at all - lies in the quality of the thinking about the things that are not.One thing that caught my eye is your supposition about philosophical subject matter. What is or what things are considered to be "determinate" subject matter? — 3017amen
If affiliation is not evidence of belief, then affiliation is not evidence of atheism either. Your claim stands unsupported. — Apollodorus
If you cannot or will not grasp a distinction between belief in God and religious affiliation or belief, then the rest of your argument(s) are suspect. No doubt many do, but that is not the claim you're making. — tim wood
The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions? — Apollodorus
Youre' not wirth the time and effort. Those thinking you are can expend that time and effort and review the posts. — tim wood
The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions? — Apollodorus
TMF!
Thank you for your contribution as always. Examples that would help to elucidate that subject matter? — 3017amen
Einstein in a religious context reminds me of the time when some friends and I wanted to play volleyball; we had to divide ourselves into two teams. There was this guy who was an exceptionally good player [read Einstein] and both teams [read atheists & theists]wanted him on their side. Nothing more need be said. — TheMadFool
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind. — Letter of condolence sent to Robert J. Marcus of the World Jewish Congress, 12 February 1950
Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. — 3017amen
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.