@Tom Storm

Some people think that. Faith is the excuse they give for believing in something when they have no good reasons. If you have good reasons to believe something, you give those reasons. If you have nothing, you can say it's down to faith. And there's nothing you can't justify using faith - I remember well some devote Christian South Africans telling me that apartheid was god's will and that they had this on faith. No reason necessary.

Yes of course,many people use "faith" for the unjustifiable and immoral. Just like science is used to make weapons and torture equipment and enforce oppression.

Their are always reasons given for faith,its just what criteria of reason you accept.
I feel god in my heart is a reason. Its just that some people misuse that reason.

Bottom line,you will find all things depend on a certain type of trust. Philosophers of all people should know,after all these centuries of pontificating they still trust in "abstract reason" when they can even agree or prove much of anything!

@javi2541997
Aristotle believed in God ( prime mover) and Karma ( moral actions having consequences) as did plato.

And yes,God has different names in Arabic and hebrew and existed before the bible and quran.
God was also misinterpreted before these books and after!
The concept of God does not come from Books or priests.

I feel god in my heart is a reason. — Adamski

Do you have a particular god in mind?

I think you don't understand Aristotle yet... please go and read some Greek philosophy books. It would prevent you from say ignorant arguments as "Aristotle believed in God"

@javi2541997
Is that supposed to be an argument!
Many people know aristotle believed in a prime mover.
You disputing that?

@Tom Storm
You can call god what you want in your own language or use a name you feel comfortable with.
I'm talking about the god of conscience. Everybody has a conscience they feel. That's the one I'm referring to.

[reply="Adamski;730291" Ok. Thanks.

Many people know aristotle believed in a prime mover.
You disputing that? — Adamski

Yes, Aristotle believed in a "prime mover" but I guess your God doesn't fit in this:

As there are no motions of motions, we can set aside action and passion (items (7) and (8) in the Categories). This leaves us with the shorter list of relevant categories, (1) substance, (2) quality, (3) quantity, and (4) place.
Aristotle asserts that “some things are the same both in potentiality and in actuality, but not at the same time or not in the same respect, as e.g. [a thing is] warm in actuality and cold in potentiality” (Physics 3.1, 201a19–22) Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy

In any case, the actuality of what is potentially F, whenever, being in actuality, it is active-not insofar as it is itself, but insofar as it is moveable- is motion.” –Aristotle (Physics)
We can see that there appears to be an endless regress. A is moved by B. B is moved by C. C is moved by D – so on and so on. The question is, how far back does it go?
To answer this, Aristotle proposes what is known as the “unmoved mover.” This entity would be the end of the line, so to speak. The unmoved mover would have initiated movement within the universe. More importantly, the unmoved mover would not have been set in motion by another thing. Who Is the Unmoved Mover?

I tend to think that ALL belief is unjustified. Until I actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN, how can my belief be justified? I even go so far as to say belief is the enemy of knowledge. — Yohan

Yohan So what justifies the epistemic standard of justification?(re: verificationism — 180 Proof

Natural science relies on verificationism?: "only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies)."
At the same time, scientific theories attempt to explain empirical observations. You can't empirically observe/verify the theory/explanation itself. Explanations aren't empirical. Go figure? Its almost like theories involve metaphysical aspects?

Yet, theories, being non-empurical, aren't reducible to mere tautologies are they?

If science relied strictly on what is empirically verifiable or observable there wouldn't be scientific theories. Ought there not to be theories in science? Do scientific theories muddle empirical science with philosophy/metaphysics?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how can one know that they know?

Yes, Aristotle believed in a "prime mover" but I guess your God doesn't fit in this: — javi2541997

We won't know now since he was banned.

So is prostitution. :cool: — Tom Storm

Is there something wrong with prostitution, Tom?

Is there something wrong with prostitution, Tom? — Tate

Why do you ask, are you a Catholic?

Is there something wrong with prostitution, Tom?
— Tate

Why do you ask, are you a Catholic? — Tom Storm

"Religion is old". pointing to a citation of an 8000 year old religion.

"So is prostitution"

What was your point? If you didn't have one and were just randomly mumbling like an Alzheimer's victim, that's fine. I was just asking.

The point is obvious and please try to communicate without name-calling. Lots of things are old. My point is, so what?

What was your point? If you didn't have one and were just randomly mumbling like an Alzheimer's victim,

That was disrespectful as hell...

What Tom said to you is the fact that he doesn't care about how old religion is. Prostitution is also an old profession, so what? Didn't you get the ironic tone?

That was disrespectful as hell...

What Tom said to you is the fact that he doesn't care about how old religion is. Prostitution is also an old profession, so what? Didn't you get the ironic tone? — javi2541997

That's true, it was disrespectful. Sorry, Tom.

I thought he was condemning religion and prostitution at the same time. That's why I asked if he had a problem with prostitution.

He answered that by asking me if I'm Catholic.

I have no idea what's going on there.

Modern science does not "rely on verification" insofar verificationism is itself unverifiable. Empirical knowledge is fallibilistic, not justified. Read Peirce, Popper, Haack et al. Consider: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

thought he was condemning religion and prostitution at the same time. That's why I asked if he had a problem with prostitution.

He answered that by asking me if I'm Catholic.

I have no idea what's going on there. — Tate

No problem.

Thanks

Prostitution is often called 'the world's oldest profession'. When someone points to religions being old as a criterion of value, I point out this. One of the very things religion often condemns - prostitution - is probably as old as religion. And it was a jape - hence the emoji.

Anyway enough on this, right?

Right! :up:


Ok, you express yourself better than before.

If you glance at the website I pointed to, it explains that we get insight into ancient religions by looking at the way people handled death.

You'll probably find that this is still true. Death will bring you back to your society's version of the temple.

Just to clarify, there's nothing wrong with religion or prostitution. The fact that they're both really old should give us pause. Why have they been with us for so long?

By the way, this little item, a copy of which hangs on my wall, was probably a sign for a prostitute's workplace.

It's also associated with Astarte.

My comment wasn't a reference to the rightness or wrongness of anything. It was a reference to 'old'.

It is interesting indeed. But I see it as good research about anthropology.

It is interesting indeed. But I see it as good research about anthropology. — javi2541997

But not religion?

a sign for a prostitute's workplace.

It's also associated with Astarte.

Ancient Egypt was polytheistic and represented all their reality through the so-called hieroglyphs.
We can be agreed that the figure can represent a "prostitute's workplace" but it is complex because their representations tend to be arbitrary.

But not religion?

It was just my point of view on the topic.

Why have they been with us for so long? — Tate

'Monogamy' (re: prohibitions / stigma of prostitution) is a very recent cultural development of our species and 'denial of mortality' (e.g. religion) is an atavistic coping (anti-anxiety à la placebo) mechanism that might have given rise to culture in the first place. They are legacies of the childhood of the species, IMHO, and nothing more, and their antiquity no more justifies them than e.g. cannibalism is justified by its antiquity.

I really wasn't trying to justify anything. I was just contributing based on the OP title. Maybe that was misguided.

They are legacies of the childhood of the species, — 180 Proof

I don't know. Atheism (or something close to it) is fairly old, although no where near as old as religion.

Maybe atheism just comes and goes and religion is the norm.

Ancient Egypt was polytheistic and represented all their reality through the so-called hieroglyphs.
We can be agreed that the figure can represent a "prostitute's workplace" but it is complex because their representations tend to be arbitrary. — javi2541997

Astarte didn't originate in Egypt. She's Semitic.

In a religious milieu, "atheism" has a sanitary function as cognitive hygiene (practice) or an intellectual prophylactic (theory) ~ anti-magical / anti-supernatural thinking and living. Also, "atheism" is a very late cultural development compared to the antiquity of religion (i.e. organized superstition), such as e.g. naturalistic philosophies.