Reread my previous posts. My meaning, I think, is clear.

:up: :100:

:100:
:sparkle:

Way too much "playing tennis without a net" going on for this thread to remotely be a philosophical, let alone historical, discussion. — 180 Proof

Is that another Einsteinian emotional response, or are you a player without a racket? Surely you're not throwing in the towel again in yet another match :razz:

You may want to start an angry atheist thread and see who wins :joke:

Shameless. :rofl:

Okay, I will look at your previous posts, because I wish to go forward but don't wish to go off on a magic bus. I will look further tomorrow because I think that I must have written more than about 10 posts, and I don't wish to write complete gobbledgook. I will read through my thread tomorrow morning, and read it with a fresh perspective.

How do we think of religious experience in connection to political correctness. Part of this would be about accepting everyone's views, but how would this come into play in the subjective interpretations, especially in the interpretations of the Bible? — Jack Cummins

Well, to be quite honest, I think to make Bible interpretation subject to political correctness would amount to knowingly sabotaging your own effort. Religion and philosophy should inform politics, not the other way round.

But, anyway, as long as you have expert traffic wardens to guide your bus journey, or even drive your bus for you, I'm sure it will all have a happy end. I do not wish to interfere.

Religion and philosophy should inform politics, not the other way round. — Apollodorus

Well said. Religious philosophy obviously not only influenced Greek philosophy... , and the American currency :cool:

Here's an interesting thought, I wonder if atheists should lobby to get In God We Trust removed from our currency(?). I would love to hear the arguments, especially in light of the foregoing influences :razz:

Kind of reminds me of Ronald Reagan Jr. (atheist) whining about politics.... :snicker:

Not necessarily. They may have had access to evidence, e.g., miracles, visions, etc. that we can no longer access except if we start from an attitude of faith. If I understand Christianity correctly, Jesus reveals himself to those who have faith in him. — Apollodorus

Sure. Faith. Belief. All in themselves unassailable. But no facts. When 3017 says,

Of course, Jesus was known to be part God — 3017amen

,
He's talking a kind of nonsense. They didn't know it. Some may have thought and believed it, but they did not know it, because it is not a thing that can be known. That's the distinction I'm making. Talking - writing - about God as if a matter of fact thing is anti-philosophic, anti-sense, and is a kind of nonsense. Being unwilling or unable to make the distinction a sign of mental difficulty. Insistence on it verging on dangerous.

Is that another Einsteinian emotional response, or are you a player without a racket? Surely you're not throwing in the towel again in yet another match :razz:

You may want to start an angry atheist thread and see who wins :joke: — 3017amen

Fuck you again, 3017. You had your chance in a debate that you couldn't handle and ran away from. Now you're just an infant going nyah nyah, but your noises are without worth or merit, ultimately just noises of your own worthlessness in these discussions.

Religious philosophy — 3017amen

This is an oxymoron, spoken by a moron.

Good point. Obviously, if we were to allow religion and philosophy to be conducted on political lines, that would amount to making them into instruments of vested interests which is antithetical to both religion and philosophy, both of which aim to discover a higher truth that is independent of political concerns.

Imagine practicing religion or philosophy according to one set of political guidelines for four years, and according to another set for the next four years, and so on. Totally ludicrous IMHO :grin:

it is not a thing that can be known. That's the distinction I'm making. — tim wood

I think most rational people can see the distinction. If some people had visions or other experiences of something or somebody they were convinced to be a divine being, then there is little we can say about it now when no hard evidence is available.

But the strange thing is that seemingly intelligent and educated philosophers like Socrates, Plato and their followers have spent many centuries talking and writing about God or things connected with the divine. Perhaps this reflects a deeper human need or desire for knowledge of things beyond matter. By investigating the ultimate composition of matter, science in a way is attempting to do the same thing.

When did religion become something other than politics? Was it with the death of the Messiah? Or will it come with the fulfilment of the Religious Right's vision of Armageddon? Trump did his part and God's work by making Jerusalem the capital. Meanwhile there is the war to save Christmas and bring prayer back to the schools, and protect God fearing people from making cakes for those they really fear.

Imagine practicing religion or philosophy according to one set of political guidelines for four years, and according to another set for the next four years, and so on. Totally ludicrous IMHO :grin: — Apollodorus

I believe in certain countries like Syria, their politics and religion are not separated. Likewise imagine a Catholic becoming president and how Protestants, Calvinists, Lutheran's, Baptists, ad nauseam might react (?). I've always said man-made religion give God a bad name; in Christianity I wonder if Jesus supported Catholicism :razz:

But back to philosophy, currently the Greeks use the term metaphysics which originally meant, that which comes after physics. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was Aristotle's definition.

Apparently metaphysics means the study of topics about physics as opposed to the scientific subject itself, and/or the nature of reality. To quote Paul Davies:

"Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin nature and purpose of the universe how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter and the existence of free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them or any meaning of life questions."

Is there a better way to bridge the empirical sciences gap? Some would say cognitive science is but one means & method in trying to discover and uncover some sense of one's own reality. Otherwise philosophically, asking metaphysical questions about things-in-themselves is always an intriguing exercise (Time and Eternity, the Will, etc.).

:grin:

By investigating the ultimate composition of matter, science in a way is attempting to do the same thing. — Apollodorus

The point is made elsewhere that natural science presupposes a God, He of law.

— Apollodorus

But the strange thing is that seemingly intelligent and educated philosophers like Socrates, Plato and their followers have spent many centuries talking and writing about God or things connected with the divine. — Apollodorus

And none so far as I know affirm the mere existence of any God. The Greeks are understood to have understood their Gods as personifications of human characteristics. It all comes back to God as an idea. First as an account of the unexplained. The as a source of man's better thoughts.

all comes back to God as an idea — tim wood

Is that like the Ontological argument ?
:razz:

Likewise imagine a Catholic becoming president and how Protestants, Calvinists, Lutheran's, Baptists, ad nauseam might react (?). — 3017amen

A Catholic did become president.

in Christianity I wonder if Jesus supported Catholicism :razz: — 3017amen

This is just stupidly ignorant.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was Aristotle's definition. — 3017amen

You're wrong.

Is that like the Ontological argument ? — 3017amen

Someday, 3017, you will grow up and stop being an a**hole. Either that or you will die first and never not have been an a**hole.

Fuck you again, 3017. — tim wood

Hahaha. Have you thought about opening an angry atheist thread :joke:

Never any substance from you, 3017. You're just noise.

Never any substance from you, 3017. You're just noise. — tim wood

(In logic) is that an ad hominem fallacy?
:razz:

Well, to be quite honest, I think to make Bible interpretation subject to political correctness would amount to knowingly sabotaging your own effort. Religion and philosophy should inform politics, not the other way round. — Apollodorus

I thought political correctness was over in ethics.
After all, that's what it's about, regardless of what the wording may suggest.

Religion should inform politics? About what?
(..., 2013, 2016, 2019, 2020, ...)

That's precisely why in antiquity there was something like a state religion. Every city-state among the Greeks, Phoenicians, etc. had its own religion where one deity was above all others. Plato suggested something similar for the ideal city-state. The Roman empire had something like a state religion and that tradition continued after the introduction of Christianity, with the Orthodox Church based in Constantinople ruling in the east and the Catholic Church based in Rome ruling in the west. Of course things got more complicated after the reformation but all Christian denominations have some basic principles in common that they can agree on, and of course, the largest denomination would take precedence over smaller ones.

Yes, "things-in-themselves" have always intrigued philosophical minds from the time of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics says:

"What on earth do they mean by speaking of a thing-itself? assuming that the definition of man is one and the same both in man and in man-himself; for qua man they will not differ at all, and if they do not, neither will what is good and the good-itself differ qua good".

I suppose this was why Plato introduced the concept of Forms, a kind of universal patterns that consciousness uses to organize itself in order to produce determinate cognition. But if you go beyond the Forms you find consciousness itself, the Cosmic Intellect (or Mind of God) that creates all things. That's about as far as the human mind can go in discursive thought (dianoia). After that, a different form of direct, non-discursive or intuitive perception (noesis) takes over and at that stage there are no thoughts and no language in which to express the experience or communicate it to others. Words seem ridiculous and pointless.

This is why all philosophical systems, both in the West and the East, have turned to mystical experience when philosophizing about ultimate reality couldn't take them any further. It was one of the reasons why Greek philosophers embraced Christianity. Where reason no longer helps, faith and devotion might just push you that bit further and help you achieve your philosophical goal which is not to know truth intellectually, but to actually experience it.

The as a source of man's better thoughts. — tim wood

Well, I suppose you could put it that way. A Collective or Universal Mind that is the source of all thoughts and experiences. But still a divine or suprahuman, not a human one. Plato and Aristotle wouldn't have disagreed.

Religion should inform politics? About what? — jorndoe

About ethics, what is right and what is wrong. Politics is about power, ethics is about how to use that power.

But still a divine or suprahuman, not a human one. — Apollodorus

Belief or matter of fact? If the latter, evidence?

Belief until personally experienced. After that, matter of fact evidenced by one's own personal experience.

About ethics, what is right and what is wrong. — Apollodorus

Religion should inform ethics? No. Divine command theory, theological voluntarism, ...? No. Accountability to an imaginary friend rather than your fellow humans? No.

(..., 2013, 2016, 2019, 2020, ...)

[religion and morality] are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides. — The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics

:100: :lol:

:rofl:

:up: