There's no problem to solve that I can see. — 180 Proof

Ok! :up:

You would judge it by the same way an atheist would use to assess character in someone or in a group. You can't get inside other people's thoughts and it's up to everyone to find the absolute on their own.

The abject failure of Christianity to break into India — Art48

is due to one and only one reason - Doubting Thomas was the Christian missionary to Hindoostan. His skepticism disseminated faster and wider than his faith. The Second Coming is going to take place in India mes amies, in India. :grin:

Ok, sounds reasonable, but it also tells us that personal experience of god is no pathway to reliable knowledge. We need to use reason and judgement to determine what views we will accept.

It has failed to find objective reality — Art48

Science is also failing here. Don't let your anti-religion push you into worshiping or idolizing science.

God demonstrates his presence to those with faith. — Gregory

Prove it! and if you can't, then It's just as feasible for me to say that pixies live in the cupboard of my hallway. YOU wont ever see them as you don't have the faith required! Is this really the mechanism you are trying to peddle?

YOU are an atheist in every sense except in the christian sense. You believe in one more god than I do.
You only have to take one more step, using the same rationale that makes you reject Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus etc.

How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this? — Tom Storm

How is your embodied or experienced certainty distinguished from the similar certainties of a QAnon believer or a Scientologist or a Hindu? — Tom Storm

So my question asked earlier remains: -
How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this? — Tom Storm

You know all this from experience? — Tom Storm

What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false? — Tom Storm

My question was:
Why should we accept this experiential knowledge as opposed to similar claims from other theists who, let's say, know from experience that god wants 'fags to burn in hell' and that women are inferior to men?
What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false? — Tom Storm

How do we determine that the sincere personal experience of one believer is right, while the experience of another is wrong. Is there a process? — Tom Storm

A superb effort from Tom, but of course, when you are asked to explain yourself, you run and hide behind sophistic responses, as all theism does. Tom eventually let you run away, with:

Ok, sounds reasonable, but it also tells us that personal experience of god is no pathway to reliable knowledge. We need to use reason and judgement to determine what views we will accept. — Tom Storm

Why don't you actually answer his questions and explain how your rationale arrives at god and why you favour the christian god over zeus or odin.

Humans use these inventions. There is a clear track record of how humans have so far used these inventions.
To believe that next week or next year humans will all come together in a single, benevolent "We" and start using their inventions wisely for the betterment of all is a great leap of faith. — Vera Mont

I don't follow the value of the path you are trying to trace out here, in the sense that you seem so unnecessarily negative.
I know you have already confirmed that you have somewhat 'given up,' on your own species, but you continue to demonstrate a strong command of reason, so, I cannot believe you have no confidence left at all, that the human race can create and exist within a very good society that would make the 'human condition,' a very positive experience, for almost all who live it and for 'anything,' that encounters its constituent members. Humans have used that which they invented, yes, and there are many examples where some humans have used human inventions for selfish or nefarious purposes. But, there are also as many examples where humans have used human inventions for very good purposes. It seems to me Vera, that you are merely complaining about the examples you can cite about some nasty humans making nasty uses of human inventions. Like those humans who use food in cans, water in bottles, and land which they claim THEY OWN! to make profit. I think you agree, that the purpose of food is to feed, water to drink, land to live on and from. Using such to make profit is a 'horrible contrivance.' So, humans must continue to strive to correct such errors.
Humans should unite globally, in benevolent common cause, because it would be very wise to do so. You agree with that, yes?

Believing - contrary to all evidence - that something humans created will solve the human condition. — Vera Mont

Well, what else do you suggest can correct the current shortfalls in the human condition?
You have already made it clear, that in your opinion, religion will never do it.
Science is the only methodology I can see, that can provide the technology, to comfortably provide, the basic needs of every human on this planet, in a sustainable way. The economic and political systems that can and I hope will follow this, are only feasible, if the tech is available in support. Until that point is reached, we will continue to fight over resources and the nefarious rich will remain a problem.
We will not be able to successfully explore and develop extraterrestrial space, until we have tidied up and secured our own home nest. The planned Artemis moon missions and the establishment of a permanent moon base, has not even been achieved yet, and when it has, it will be no more than the tiniest step forward. It will take a lot more time to get it right Vera, as I have typed before, on the timescale of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a f****** chance!'

Science is also failing here. Don't let your anti-religion push you into worshiping or idolizing science. — Olivier5

So, your advice is, don't make the same mistakes theists make all the time. Probably good advice, but we are all forced to plant our flag in one camp or the other. The middle ground is a powerless place, all you can do there, is remain ineffective but you can use it to 'rest and think,' until you decide to move into a camp or else you can remain in limbo and be ineffective, as long as you live.

So, your advice is, don't make the same mistakes theists make all the time. Probably good advice, but we are all forced to plant our flag in one camp or the other. The middle ground is a powerless place, all you can do there, is remain ineffective but you can use it to 'rest and think,' until you decide to move into a camp or else you can remain in limbo and be ineffective, as long as you live. — universeness

Don't worship idols, is one of the best advices in all scripture. Idols - defined as human things we hold sacred - are surprisingly common, even beyond religion: the Bible of course, but also the Almighty Dollar, Communism, the Fatherland, or Science.

As soon as we act, we are indeed forced to chose a side, to make a leap of faith. You are correct on this, but we can act without idolizing our intent. We can make money without becoming its slave; we can fight without demonizing our opponent; and we can love science without giving it the final say, always and on every topic. Science is only human. It can fail.

Why the angry post. I answered all Tom's questions and refuted your Wiki argument. My position was just that religion is not unreasonable. I never said I was a Christian. You are either having a bad day or don't have a higher philosophical mindset and aren't interested in truth, like Tom, but in arguing.

Perhaps you are being over-sensitive. My response to you was not angry, it was merely accurate.
You did not answer Tom's questions and your attempt at refuting the Wiki article was spurious hand waving at best. Either defend theism or don't. If you wish to just pose as a theist then fine, be honest about it.
I am having a very nice day and It's vey easy to recognise your boring passive aggressive insult with:

or don't have a higher philosophical mindset and aren't interested in truth — Gregory

:smile: Is that all you got?

Don't worship idols, is one of the best advices in all scripture — Olivier5

Don't worship anything is better advice. Worship is an extreme, irrational, dangerous activity.
I suspect most rational people avoid it based on observation of those who practice it.
All gods are idolised by some imo, including yaweh and allah, a statute is not really needed.

As soon as we act, we are indeed forced to chose a side, to make a leap of faith. You are correct on this, but we can act without idolizing our intent. We can make money without becoming its slave; we can fight without demonizing our opponent; and we can love science without giving it the final say, always and on every topic. Science is only human. It can fail. — Olivier5

I broadly agree, but would suggest that attempting to regularly consider the consequences of the actions you do eventually decide to take, is also very important. I need to make money under the current economic system I live under to survive, but I can still work as much as I can towards removing money as the main driver of human lives and I can also work hard against those who promote capitalism as a good way to power a human society. The good thing about science is that it can fail many many times but the scientists will try try again.

@Gregory

YOU are an atheist in every sense except in the christian sense. You believe in one more god than I do.
You only have to take one more step, using the same rationale that makes you reject Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus etc. — universeness

:fire:

Progress is a subjective human concept of which the universe pays no heed

1) religious people believe that the world comes from a spiritual source. They all agree on that. Whether they agree or not on religious manifestations (religions) they are not atheists because they believe in the spiritual source. Obviously! So bad argument 1 answered

2) you say faith cannot accomplish a miracle. Well prayer is not perfect most of the time and if faith is not strong enough for a specific miracle God still grants more than what is asked for. You can't always see God's work Simple

Any other concerns?

You are either having a bad day or don't have a higher philosophical mindset and aren't interested in truth, like Tom, but in arguing. — Gregory

Now, now, that's not a quality response. Arguing is tedious and I don't think there has been any arguing in this thread. I only undertake questioning like this to better understand what others believe and why, whether they are postmodernists or theists. Sometimes people make claims which require follow up questions for clarification and sometimes people struggle to answer them.

I don't follow the value of the path you are trying to trace out here, — universeness

History. Written, oral, artistic depictions, and fossil record. Also the number of human currently alive, the percent of those currently endangered, at risk and marginal; the percentage currently living in luxury beyond the dreams of ancient eastern potentates. The condition of the planet and its non-human inhabitants.

but you continue to demonstrate a strong command of reason, so, I cannot believe you have no confidence left at all, that the human race can create and exist within a very good society that would make the 'human condition,' a very positive experience, — universeness

The human race has had science since before it was human. It has been using science from the very beginning; for about 5 million years. Somewhere in there, they learned to use fire, altered bones, skins, stones, logs and reeds for their purposes and established settled communities. Many of those may have been - there is some evidence that some were - very good societies. Near the present, around 6000 years ago, they invented the wheel, writing and religion. In that 6000 years. with all those ancient tools and a million new ones, they did not create a good society. They created islands of goodness for some fortunate generations of a segment of one society or another, but they're never sustainable.
What will happen in the 50 years that could have happened, and didn't, in the past 6000?

It will take a lot more time to get it right Vera, as I have typed before, on the timescale of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a f****** chance!' — universeness

We are not on the cosmic calendar; we are on the doomsday clock. I'll be out of you way soon enough. But the messes made by science and technology are not going anywhere; their effects are in operation. To believe that this trend will be reversed in the available time requires faith. I have no faith.
I don't say humans being can't make good societies: it is very probable that they have, and that those societies were more durable than the more recent ones. It is possible that a remnant of humanity will start over and do better - but their task will be far more difficult. Our distant ancestors lived on a far more hospitable and generous planet than our descendants will have.

:up:

Appeal to popularity / tradition fallacy —> magical thinking (i.e. make believe) :fire: :eyes: :pray:

A more likely "source" ...

Progress is a subjective human concept of which the universe pays no heed — Lambert Strether

Yep, the universe doesn't care whether there's progress or not, but that doesn't mean there's none.

To progress also means simply to go forward - it doesn't indicate direction or ascent.

:up:

There's a point to @Lambert Strether's remark. If I place A, B, C in that particular sequence, one begins to see growth/advancement in the series so arranged i.e. one instinctively feels C > B > A. Zen Buddhism comes to mind - the apotheosis of mentation is moshin no shin (mindless mind) or in other words when consciousness peaks, it absconds or disappears.

Maximum entropy (omega) is the terminus of all sequences. Or chasing your own tail... "Progress" is a parochial illusion like the apparent flatness of the Earth.

Maximum entropy (omega) is the terminus of all sequences. "Progress" is a parochial illusion like the apparent flatness of the Earth. — 180 Proof

The net entropy, you're right on the money, increases. Was there any order to begin with or was it always chaos and then more chaos? @Gnomon.

Minimum disorder to maximum disorder. That's how we roll, amigo.

Minimum disorder to maximum disorder. That's how I roll, amigo. — 180 Proof

Keep rolling, watch out for that cliff mon ami!

The good thing about science is that it can fail many many times but the scientists will try try again. — universeness

And so will the priests. Amen.

Sure it does since the concept of "progress", which isn't even consensually agreed upon among humans, is just a constructed concept from an infinitesimal speck with it

Not only that, but physicists have well established that entropy is the nature of the universe, which even goes against a nonconsensual human theory of progress...or even a popular one

No, not all definitions define progress as "simply going forward," and even if they did, the Universe would have no care about earthling(s) definition of it nor would it adhere to that definition or the definition of "forward"...particularly since it shows many more signs of entropy, not development (even if that use of forward was the one)

the Universe would have no care about earthling(s) — Lambert Strether

@180 Proof, @Agent Smith, @Tom Storm, @Vera Mont

I agree, in principle with Lamberts recent typing's in this thread BUT we are not separable from the universe, we are OF the universe, so there is a 'frame of reference,' within which the universe does care. We are that frame of reference. WE CARE and we are part of it!
I know the hard problem of consciousness, currently remains a 'hard problem,' but do you not ruminate sometimes about our role in giving purpose to the universe in all it's 'hard to perceive' vastness?
We need no god to humble ourselves before. We may be quite an important happening in the universe. We might be emergent. Do you assign any credence to this kind of viewpoint?
Btw, I am not advocating the current definitions of panpsychism or cosmopsychism but perhaps there is a case for some kind of future collectivisation/networking of knowledge/consciousness.
I agree that 'progress' is ultimately interpretive but 'change,' is empirically observed in all of our lives, every day and it is also very clearly demonstrated historically, from the days of the Proterozoic.
Entropy is increasing on the largest scale of the universe, there is no doubt about that, but locally, phenomena like the human race has the potential to continue to spread, grow in numbers, ability and lifespan. Surely if this potential is realised, and we eventually gain at least, an interstellar influence, then, this points to an emergence. That emergence must have some kind of collective/networked consciousness to it? Do you agree?

That emergence must have some kind of collective/networked consciousness to it? Do you agree? — universeness

I'm really only interested in what we do to each other here and now. :wink: