Which one? — universeness

This question is as coherent as mine to your question.

The truth is important to me — universeness

Which truth do you believe in?

Being Jewish does not mean you follow Judaism and the words in the Torah and Talmud, does it?
I know atheists who still call themselves Jewish. — universeness

Different Jews have different definitions.

my secular humanism needs no supernatural input to function. — universeness

If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason.

If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason. — Hanover

That's more like it. I hope this turns into a fruitful discussion. :wink:

Your assumption that @Hanover was a Christian because he's a theist is similar to the assumption about me you made in the shoutbox that I'm no longer a theist because I said I'm no longer religious. I am a theist, although I avoid declaring so because of the inevitable misunderstandings this leads to. Happy to elaborate. But these assumptions in a small way highlight what I'm saying: that a nuanced approach to this issue is best for gaining understanding. These blanket assumptions you made betray a lack of critical analysis of this issue, I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. I've made many an emotional argument myself and still do. But it's important, if you want to better understand religion, to become aware of ones biases and emotional positions and how they affect your perception of the issue. If you do this, your experience of exploring this will be greatly enhanced. That's all I was trying to get at in the shoutbox.

The truth is important to me, and my secular humanism needs no supernatural input to function. I find this functionality, to be very useful, based on my 99.999% conviction level that your god does not exist. — universeness

Is 'Truth' truth to everyone in the same way? If you have found a little, some, or all of 'the truth' have you found it not only for yourself, but for everybody else? I don't believe everyone has their own truth about the cosmos. But the truth in one person's circumstance may not be true in a different set of circumstances.

You believe that you know the truth that the god @Hanover claims does not exist. (It's probably considered rude in polite society to inform people that their deities do not exist. It's similar (in terms of etiquette) to informing dinner guests that after the revolution we'll take all their property away from them. It might be true, but not very polite.

Things are improving even more in places like the UK, where for the first time in recorded history, there are more brits who consider themselves non-religious, compared to the number who consider themselves religious. — universeness

Scholars of religion have noted that, while Europeans think they are the world's opinion leaders, on religious matters they are outliers.

I agree, but I think the reason why, is that they are under attack from a growing global secular humanist movement — universeness

How big an army does the secular humanist movement have?

Afaik, protestants do not believe in the trinity. — universeness

It's part of the Christian belief set. It's referenced in the creeds (apostles, nicene, etc.). Lutherans, for one group, Angligans/Episcopalians for another, invoke the trinity in liturgy and may make the sign of the cross (which of course came from Catholicism). A lot of Americans attend "low churches" where ritual and liturgy is de-emphasized.

well if he was a socialist — universeness

Jesus was not a socialist (which would be wildly anachronistic). What he was doing for the first 29 years or so nobody knows, but during his last few years he was busy proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and then becoming the sacrificial Lamb of God. His admonishments to turn the other cheek. love your enemies, and render unto Caesar what is Caesars were all in the context of his role. There isn't any other way to understand him that makes sense. Besides, very few public speakers were urging an aggressive in-the-emperor's-face revolt. The Jews were herring up against sharks. Their best practice was to avoid confrontation. Jesus wasn't preaching "best practice" of course. He expected an eminent judgement of mankind by God, and so did the early church who created and assembled the materials that went into the New Testament,

As it turned out, the Romans were, in fact, prepared to destroy the nation of Jews -- which they did between about 35 and 70 a.d. This caused the major Jewish diaspora out of the Israel and Judea, and the destruction of the Temple, producing 'the abomination of desolation' which persists 2000 years later.

Because I believe in the existence of God.
— Hanover

Which one? — universeness

You are being obtuse, there.

:100: :up:

@universeness – Time is conventionally conceived of as consisting in past, present and future tenses and their simultaneity denotes eternity. The JCI deity is conceived of as 'eternal' which imples that all of the modes – personas – of its being simultaneously exist (like 'experiential time tense' in a block universe). 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective.

Btw, the Christian Trinity has nothing on the even more ancient Hindu Trimūrti. As Nietzsche points out, theological religion is "Platonism for the masses", or an imaginative way to stimulate some degree of reflective thinking with regard to our place in 'the grand scheme' for those without the leisure or inclination to explicitly philosophize. As much as we'd like to think so, religion hasn't yet outlived its utility because the atavistic emotional need for 'invisible support' still remains for so many in so many places.

Behold the unholy trinity of unenlightened!

Verily I say unto you, there is an old fart in the mythical realm of Wales, who does a bit of gardening. And it came to pass that the old fart sent his only seagull avatar even unto the old philosophy forum, and he was called "unenlightened". And behold, unenlightened was made administrator and did perform many wonders of banishment and casting out of trolls, calming the storms, and editing the 5,000. And His task being accomplished with the passing of the old forum, he did resign his post, and did not take it up in the new philosophy forum. But he did send his frog/horse avatar to be a discomforter, and to lead his people from the back-benches in the ways of philosophy. And though the gardener is not the administrator, and the administrator is not the annoying poster, yet they are the same person. This is a mystery unfathomable to mere mortals, and must be accepted on faith.

Which truth do you believe in? — Hanover

I think I have made my beliefs quite clear in my postings. Perhaps you should be more forthcoming in the details of your theism, unless you are scared that the details of your theism may come across to others as too irrational.

Different Jews have different definitions. — Hanover

Yeah, different Jews ARE indeed, different people.

If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason. — Hanover

If you don't value my ability to discern what is credible to me and what is not, then why do you assume that I should credit your ability to discern or recognise a lie?
Do you know of another species that can affect its surroundings in the way humans can?
Does your god demonstrate meaning and cause and purpose to you in the same way or more so than humans demonstrate to you every day?
What is the strongest example of evidence you have that PROVES your god exists?

Your assumption that Hanover was a Christian because he's a theist is similar to the assumption about me you made in the shoutbox that I'm no longer a theist because I said I'm no longer religious. I am a theist, although I avoid declaring so because of the inevitable misunderstandings this leads to. — Noble Dust

If you play stealth then it seems to me that misunderstanding becomes more likely.

Happy to elaborate. — Noble Dust

Please do.

These blanket assumptions you made betray a lack of critical analysis of this issue, I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. — Noble Dust

Any assumption I make is easily corrected by an honest interlocuter.
Making an assumption and stating it, can often result in obtaining clarification, even if reluctantly revealed.

I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. — Noble Dust

Emotion is a very important part of what it is to be human, I make no apologies for displaying passion, when I type about what I think of the world I experience. At least I do my best (at least in my opinion), to justify my emotions with rational support.

But it's important, if you want to better understand religion, to become aware of ones biases and emotional positions and how they affect your perception of the issue. If you do this, your experience of exploring this will be greatly enhanced. That's all I was trying to get at in the shoutbox. — Noble Dust

Well, that comes across as an honourable intention, and I accept your claim that it is so.
In the same way, I hope you accept that my critique of the doctrine and practices of organised religions and of generalised or personal theism and/or theosophism is not 'knee-jerk,' or based on some neophyte level understanding of its current impact on everyday human lives, or the effects such has had, on the human experience, since any hominid species started to wonder wtf this existence was all about.
One of our best practices is our ability to question everything. I am sure you agree.
I remain a skeptic. If god has no ability or will to reveal itself then it either does not exist or it is a complete f***wit who thinks remaining divinely hidden, has a value.
Such a god would be a moron and of zero value to humans. Any human who does not agree, is completely free to defend this god using any actual evidence they have or can imagineer.

If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?' I would certainly contribute. If you want to try to do so in this thread, then I am also very willing to respond to your points.

Is 'Truth' truth to everyone in the same way? If you have found a little, some, or all of 'the truth' have you found it not only for yourself, but for everybody else? I don't believe everyone has their own truth about the cosmos. But the truth in one person's circumstance may not be true in a different set of circumstances. — BC

These are old tired points about the nature of truth and objective and subjective truth, based on perceived reference frames. The annoying issue regarding that tedious debate, is that theists present their theism as deserving of a high credence level for its status as 'true,' much more so, than I expect from people when it comes to accepting my exclamations of what I consider to be deserving of the label 'true.' Theists have almost no compelling evidence AT ALL for their claims, yet you are complaining to me about my claims of what is true or not true. I find that quite misdirected.

You believe that you know the truth that the god Hanover claims does not exist. (It's probably considered rude in polite society to inform people that their deities do not exist. It's similar (in terms of etiquette) to informing dinner guests that after the revolution we'll take all their property away from them. It might be true, but not very polite. — BC

I don't consider TPF debates to be akin to, or comparable with, a polite dinner party environment.
If it was as tedious as that, then I would not bother to post here at all.

Scholars of religion have noted that, while Europeans think they are the world's opinion leaders, on religious matters they are outliers. — BC

Which scholars are you citing here? Provide example published statements from 'respected' sources, that make such dumb statements about a continent of over 700 million people.

How big an army does the secular humanist movement have? — BC

Getting bigger every day! How many atheist/ secular humanist groups would you like me to list.
Would you not prefer to research this yourself or are you already aware of the current rise and rise of secular humanism in the USA and Europe?

What he was doing for the first 29 years or so nobody knows — BC

There is 'The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.'. This 2nd century document presents Jesus the youth as a rather nasty little demonic character imo.

"The text describes the life of the child Jesus from the age of five to age twelve, with fanciful, and sometimes malevolent, supernatural events. He is presented as a precocious child who starts his education early. The stories cover how the young Incarnation of God matures and learns to use his powers for good and how those around him first respond in fear and later with admiration. One of the episodes involves Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life, an act also attributed to Jesus in Quran 5:110, and in a medieval Jewish work known as Toledot Yeshu, although Jesus's age at the time of the event is not specified in either account. In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected. Jesus kills this first child, when at age one he curses a boy, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Later, Jesus kills another child via curse when the child apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).

When Joseph and Mary's neighbours complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher, instead, upsetting the teacher who suspects supernatural origins. Jesus is amused by this suspicion, which he confirms, and revokes all his earlier apparent cruelty. Subsequently, he resurrects a friend who is killed when he falls from a roof, and heals another who cuts his foot with an axe."

His admonishments to turn the other cheek. love your enemies, and render unto Caesar what is Caesars were all in the context of his role — BC

Like @Hanover, I am fairly convinced that the biblical Jesus did not exist, as a real historical individual. I think he is a satire, a parody and a combinatorial of many rebel Jewish leaders, mostly from the Sicarii.
The words put in his characterised mouth, are from authors in support of or in appeasement of, Roman rule.
All the 'Jesus' quotes I mentioned are attempts to get rebellious jews to stop rebelling.

As much as we'd like to think so, religion hasn't yet outlived its utility because the atavistic emotional need for 'invisible support' still remain for so many in so many places. — 180 Proof

I know, but still, it's important to help push it towards being totally and permanently archived.
People everywhere would greatly benefit from supporting scientific endeavour towards improving human longevity and robustness, rather that waste time and money on hoping for supernatural intervention, while they are still alive or after they are dead. If you wanna live a lot longer or you want your progeny to have that option, then send your money and support to science, don't give it to religious authorities, so they don't have to actually produce anything of value to survive, thrive and (as the top evanhellicals do,) live luxurious lifestyles that their duped followers fully fund.

Because I believe in the existence of God.
— Hanover

Which one?
— universeness

You are being obtuse, there. — BC

Not at all. You would not want me to misinterpret or make any more assumptions about which god @Hanover is convinced exists, merely based on the two words, 'theist' and 'Jewish.'
Should I also assume what he believes its main attributes are and what he supposes are the main functions it provides in his life?
Are you deliberately trying to get @Noble Dust to moan at me even more about my 'assumptions?' :scream:

I agree with the sentiment; the future we're striving for, however, will not be available to 90odd percent of our species for many reasons including various forms of institutionalized ignorance and learned helplessness (e.g. religious / political ideologies, philosophical idealisms, new ageisms, etc). Natural selection, it seems to me, will be superceded by technological selection: apotheosis or extinction, no? In the meantime, there's Godot (& JWST) to consider ... :death: :flower:

As a Christian myself, I think the Trinity is something to be contemplated rather than rationally understood. Throughout the Bible, there are references to 3 distinct persons, even if those references are metaphorical in nature. It also could be simply 3 distinct ways in which God interacted with man. I've never understood how there could be a son without a mother. I have once posited that perhaps God is a quaternity rather than a trinity: Father, Mother, Son, Holy Spirit.

There are many possibilities, but in keeping with my faith, I do accept the Trinity in all it's incomprehensible mystery. It's nothing that I think any Christian should get tripped up on and become troubled because it doesn't make sense.

One poster, 180 Proof made the comment : 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective

One can get creative with the underlying esoteric philosophy, and if it helps to stimulate reflection on the divine, then that's a good thing. Whatever it may be, the Christian religion holds there is an underlying 3 fold-ness. One could also contemplate all of this in light of the underlying three fold-ness of reality itself: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. You have to choose your intellectual battles, and this is not a battle I think that is worth the fight, nor do I believe it has any eternal consequences if your theology isn't exactly correct.

(& JWST) — 180 Proof

I have loved watching all the stuff about the unexpectedly large galaxies formed at distances of just 500 million or less light years after the big bang. They simply should not be there. Many astrophysicists seem to be distancing themselves from the big bang singularity as the beginning story alone. Many seem to be moving towards an oscillating or cyclical model. This should probably be in the JWST thread!
I watched another youtube vid last night, of prominent scientists explaining why Craig's Kalam is total BS and one about these galaxies found by the JWST. I was surprised at how many times prominent scientists made the comment 'not many of us still consider the big band theory sound.'

I've never understood how there could be a son without a mother. — Watchmaker

Just out of interest, what do you think of this:
Between the tenth century BC and the beginning of their Babylonian exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel. Worship solely of Yahweh became established only after the exile, and possibly, only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC). That is when monotheism became universal among the Jews. Some biblical scholars believe that Asherah at one time was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh, the national god of Israel.

Asherah is posited as the consort of many gods and is proposed to have had 77 or 88 sons.
She is a sacred feminine who is proposed as consort to:

El (Ugaritic religion)
Baal (Canaanite religion)
Elkunirsa (Hittite religion)
Yahweh (Israelite religion)
Amurru (Amorite religion)
Anu (Akkadian religion)
'Amm (Qatabanian religion)
Assur (Assyrian religion)

Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah?

Hello there UVness!

I really have no background in any of this, although I realize there is much debate.

think I have made my beliefs quite clear in my postings. Perhaps you should be more forthcoming in the details of your theism, unless you are scared that the details of your theism may come across to others as too irrational. — universeness

You didn't ask the details of my theism and I didn't ask the details of your epistemology. You asked which God I believed in and I asked which truth you believed in. Your question implies there are multiple gods and my question implies there are multiple truths. Our questions are similar in that they both inaccurately describe the other's position.

Your assumptions are imbedded in your posts, as if you have a list of gods, like the Muslim God, the Christian God, the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, etc and you want to know which I pick. This isn't a debate over religion. It's a debate over theism.

My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else. Those sorts of designations aren't scientific but just muddle a definition of God as being that ideal good that advances humanity's meaning and purpose so you can avoid admitting to theism.

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position.

Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah? — universeness

It's not two entities. It's two different vocalizations of the Tetragrammaton.

My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. — Hanover

There is no basis of morality missing from secular humanism. Humans can cooperate and agree on a moral code to live by on a small tribal basis or a global basis. We need no book of fairy stories on which to base a moral code on. We can establish a moral code based on a goal of providing well-being for all stakeholders. Is your required creator a supernatural mind? or could it be a mindless singularity?

You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. — Hanover

There is no such a state as an absolute morality. Murder is judged on a case by case basis.
You need no 'anchor' other that a willingness to cooperate with others in common cause, as the alternative is permanent war and m.a.d, and that is against out basic survival instincts.
Certainly no god shaped anchor required.

It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else — Hanover

Now who is employing special pleading? I do agree that humans seem to be the most able creature we know of when it comes to demonstrating meaning, purpose, cause, legacy etc, etc but words like 'holy,' and 'sacred' are absurd and irrational. I wonder if your use of such words will gain you a accusation of being overly emotional from @Noble Dust? Consistency is important, don't you agree?

Those sorts of designations aren't scientific but just muddle a definition of God as being that ideal good that advances humanity's meaning and purpose so you can avoid admitting to theism. — Hanover

No you are correct, such designations are certainly not scientific, but they are also not as benign as you seem to wish to flavour them. Is your concept of 'holy' and 'sacred,' ideals, that YOU personally covet or aspire to? How do these terms manifest in your daily life? and in what way are they different from my aspiration to be 'humanist'/benevolent in my dealings with other humans on a cooperative basis?
What do you conceive that your god shaped anchor offers you, that the godless me cannot match?

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position. — Hanover

I can make little sense of your first point as the term 'universal subjective truth' is meaningless to me.
A subjective truth that applies everywhere in the universe????
Your point 2 is completely absurd and your point 3 invokes a non-existent state that I do not experience, in my day to day life. No matter how much you wish I was nihilistic, without your god anchor, I will simply go on demonstrating that I am enjoying life, immensely, and I need no notion of a supernatural carer, to BE who and what I am. I own me, I don't assign my life to the gift of some esoteric, scrutineer, who seems utterly unable to make it's existence an irrefutable fact, very very probably, because it has no existent.

Hello again Watchmaker! You need NO heavy background of study in this area to just offer your pov.
Having a look at any cited links can also help build the knowledge both of us have.
Your viewpoints are as valid as anyone else's on TPF, so, have at it. The theist pov is essential to the discussion!

Thanks for the link Frank. Yes, the info I had was that Jehovah was a mistranslation of Yahweh but the language details, and vocalisations discussed, in the link you provided offer much more detail.
There seems to be no doubt, that the Christian god, traces back to a pantheon of early gods, and that remains quite problematic for Christians to fully account for imo.

There is nothing particularly unique about Yahweh, in comparison with other characters from the same pantheon.
This adds to the folklore and mythic elements of the 'word of Yahweh,' as being nothing more than the word of it's scriptwriters. There are so many such god descriptions, that the Christian writings, Islamic writings and all 'word of god' claims, become no more reliable as 'the revealed word of our creator,' than the stories and characters in modern Marvel or DC comics. It REALLY IS as valid to claim that Odin or Zeus is the one true god that created our universe and everything in it, as it is to claim it was Yahweh or Allah!
We cannot build the future of the human race on such utter nonsense!

These are old tired points about the nature of truth and objective and subjective truth, based on perceived reference frames. — universeness

Isn't using "truth" the way you did also old and tired?

If you play stealth then it seems to me that misunderstanding becomes more likely. — universeness

I don't feel any need to broadcast my beliefs, here or elsewhere. If I simply state that I'm no longer religious, the onus is not on me to elaborate on what that means. If you misinterpret it, that's your mistake.

That said, I will elaborate since you invited me to. I think consciousness is a universal state in the process of evolving which has it's genesis in a single, supreme, intelligent and ineffable source. We're all connected to this source; all life forms are. But this is nothing like the god of Christianity; it more closely resembles a Hindu conception. How I came to this belief is through experience, not logic or deductive reasoning.

Emotion is a very important part of what it is to be human, — universeness

I agree. But emotion also clouds judgement. I'm of course speaking from experience.

One of our best practices is our ability to question everything. — universeness

Yes I agree, and I of course think religion should be critiqued and called out when it causes harm. But the same is true of any organization, government, etc. I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided. Humans hurt one another and cause suffering in countless contexts, religion being one. Governments arguably cause as much or more harm, but no one is calling for the abolishment of government, or at least not for the most part.

If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?' — universeness

I have zero interest in doing this. :smile:

Isn't using "truth" the way you did also old and tired? — BC

What's your point? Are you asking me to confirm whether I think your statement quoted above, is true or not true? Which answer would suit the purpose you had in mind most, when you authored the sentence?

Humans can cooperate and agree on a moral code to live by on a small tribal basis or a global basis. — universeness

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral?

We can establish a moral code based on a goal of providing well-being for all stakeholders — universeness

What about those you imprison? How does that promote their well being?

There is no such a state as an absolute morality. Murder is judged on a case by case basis. — universeness

Absolute morality doesn't imply that you don't judge on a case by case basis. It says for a specified event, it is immoral every time you evaluate it. That is, either Pol Pot (or Hitler or the rapist next door) is immoral or he isn't, regardless of who is the judge. If he is judged by all the world as moral, then all the world is wrong. Do you disagree?

Now who is employing special pleading? I do agree that humans seem to be the most able creature we know of when it comes to demonstrating meaning, purpose, cause, legacy etc, etc but words like 'holy,' and 'sacred' are absurd and irrational. — universeness

That which is holy is set apart from all else as having special significance. Since your position is secular humanism and not secular botanism I assume you're holding that humans are of ultimate significance. If not, why do they get named in your theory?

and in what way are they different from my aspiration to be 'humanist'/benevolent in my dealings with other humans on a cooperative basis? — universeness

Because cooperation isn't an ethical theory. It's sometimes appropriate and other times not. You don't cooperate with rapists, for example. You need some ability to assert a moral realism in order to avoid having to admit to a subjective morality. A morality that exists without human beings is per se violative of secular humanity. That is, you cannot tell me rape is wrong if we all agree it is. That is the problem.

can make little sense of your first point as the term 'universal subjective truth' is meaningless to me.
A subjective truth that applies everywhere in the universe???? — universeness

How is it meaningless if you just defined it?

without your god anchor, I will simply go on demonstrating that I am enjoying life, immensely, and I need no notion of a supernatural carer, to BE who and what I am. I own me, I don't assign my life to the gift of some esoteric, scrutineer, who seems utterly unable to make it's existence an irrefutable fact, very very probably, because it has no existent. — universeness

How is your personal happiness relevant to this question? Are you trying to prove to me that a belief in God isn't necessary for happiness, as if someone argued otherwise?

If I simply state that I'm no longer religious, the onus is not on me to elaborate on what that means. If you misinterpret it, that's your mistake. — Noble Dust

Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website?

I think consciousness is a universal state in the process of evolving which has it's genesis in a single, supreme, intelligent and ineffable source. — Noble Dust

How can such be evolving if you have already declared it supreme?
I assume this intelligence you type about is not omniscient, otherwise, again, how can it 'evolve' further.

We're all connected to this source; all life forms are. — Noble Dust

What is the mechanism by which this connection you speak of functions?
Where do you suggest this source is located?
If you declare this source ineffable, then how can you make any comment as to it's existence?

But this is nothing like the god of Christianity; it more closely resembles a Hindu conception. — Noble Dust

In what sense? Which Hindu concept are you referring to? The concept of Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva?

I agree. But emotion also clouds judgement. I'm of course speaking from experience. — Noble Dust

It can do sure, if you can't control it.

I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided — Noble Dust

I disagree, as at its most fundamental level, it robs a human of their independence and forever leaves them a permanently scrutinised child, forever penitent to a master of pure imagination.
Christopher Hitchens put it best.
"Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.”

Governments arguably cause as much or more harm, but no one is calling for the abolishment of government, or at least not for the most part. — Noble Dust

Bad government yes and we fight that to, and the existence of bad government, does not in any way excuse the pernicious affects of religion. It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.'

If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?'
— universeness

I have zero interest in doing this. :smile: — Noble Dust

It's often healthy to test your rationality against dissenters but it's of course, YOUR choice.

Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website? — universeness

Christ on a hand truck, who made you the arbiter of what is gained or lost by others choosing not to discuss some things?

At this point, you are putting words in other people's mouths and then arguing with those words.

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral? — Hanover

Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you?

What about those you imprison? How does that promote their well being? — Hanover

This would be achieved on a case by case basis. Assistance with mental heath and physical addiction etc, should be well supported in all prison systems. Rehabilitation should also be a main goal, but there is no perfect justice system as there is no perfect anything. God is only ever used by the criminal mind, to excuse and even justify bad behaviour.

Absolute morality doesn't imply that you don't judge on a case by case basis. It says for a specified event, it is immoral every time you evaluate it. That is, either Pol Pot (or Hitler or the rapist next door) is immoral or he isn't, regardless of who is the judge. If he is judged by all the world as moral, then all the world is wrong. Do you disagree? — Hanover

You offer 'invalid' scenarios. There is no such state as absolute morality. The morality of a particular action of Pol Pot, Hitler or a rapist has never been judged by 'all the world'. I would judge the known acts of such people to be immoral yes. Most people would. Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will.

That which is holy is set apart from all else as having special significance. — Hanover

No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent.

Since your position is secular humanism and not secular botanism I assume you're holding that humans are of ultimate significance. If not, why do they get named in your theory? — Hanover

Secular humanism is not a theory it is a day to day human practice. You are too quick to jump to absolutes such as 'ultimate.' Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, including those who see 'god' status as their true calling. Secular humanism is socialist and irreligious in mission and somewhat ignostic towards theism imo.

Because cooperation isn't an ethical theory. — Hanover

No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct.

You don't cooperate with rapists, for example. — Hanover

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day.

How is it meaningless if you just defined it? — Hanover

Braflabin infleuentic. I just defined the term! Does it have meaning to you?

How is your personal happiness relevant to this question? Are you trying to prove to me that a belief in God isn't necessary for happiness, as if someone argued otherwise? — Hanover

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: — Hanover

(3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position. — Hanover

The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear.

Christ on a hand truck — Paine

Ok? but what the hell is a hand truck?

who made you the arbiter of what is gained or lost by others choosing not to discuss some things? — Paine

I was not arbitrating, If you don't want to discuss something on a discission site then don't post words beginning with 'I am a ...' Common sense really!

At this point, you are putting words in other people's mouths and then arguing with those words. — Paine

Nonsense.

You applied the Hitchens' argument as a counter to what was presented when the thesis Hitchen's was opposing is not being argued for here.

That is putting words in other people's mouths.