A devout Chistian is not necessatily a fanatic, a zealously religious or someone who cannot think rationally, but instead he (for brevity) believes blindly in his religion and God and reacts badly in the presense of views different than his own, as if his llfe depends on his beliefs.if you’re a devout Christian, ignore this thread — it doesn’t apply to you. It will only hurt your feelings. Go elsewhere and be well. — Mikie
this post seems motivated by a fairly bigoted conception of religion. Not all religion is necessarily at odds with naturalism and science, so the dichotomy set up is a false one. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Anytime someone gives an argument in support of their beliefs, even if it's in defense of the Earth being flat, their applying reason to defend their belief. — Sam26
Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?' — universeness
I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer". — Alkis Piskas
I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive — Alkis Piskas
And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. — Alkis Piskas
From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. — Alkis Piskas
I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity. — Alkis Piskas
Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! — universeness
Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? — Mikie
Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore? — Mikie
For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots. — frank
From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that. — DingoJones
Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science. — Mikie
In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage? — frank
It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. — DingoJones
Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy. — Sam26
I think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy. — Sam26
All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives. — universeness
In your first part I understand you to mean you think religious votaries should be confined to interactions with other religious votaries. I see this as a partial curtailment of free speech. — ucarr
Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire. — javra
Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic. — javra
I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation. — javra
Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? — Mikie
Christianity is the most enduring and influential legacy of the ancient world, and its emergence the single most transformative development in Western history. Even the increasing number in the West today who have abandoned the faith of their forebears, and dismiss all religion as pointless superstition, remain recognisably its heirs. Seen close-up, the division between a sceptic and a believer may seem unbridgeable. Widen the focus, though, and Christianity's enduring impact upon the West can be seen in the emergence of much that has traditionally been cast as its nemesis: in science, in secularism, and even in atheism.
... Ranging in time from the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC to the on-going migration crisis in Europe today, and from Nebuchadnezzar to the Beatles, it will explore just what it was that made Christianity so revolutionary and disruptive; how completely it came to saturate the mind-set of Latin Christendom; and why, in a West that has become increasingly doubtful of religion's claims, so many of its instincts remain irredeemably Christian. The aim is twofold: to make the reader appreciate just how novel and uncanny were Christian teachings when they first appeared in the world; and to make ourselves, and all that we take for granted, appear similarly strange in consequence. We stand at the end-point of an extraordinary transformation in the understanding of what it is to be human: one that can only be fully appreciated by tracing the arc of its parabola over millennia. — Jacket copy, Tom Holland: Dominion - the Making of the Western Mind
Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. — Janus
Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. — Tom Storm
I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. — Tom Storm
Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously? — Tom Storm
To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time — creativesoul
Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. — Mikie
You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time. — creativesoul
Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.
That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special. — Mikie
You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you? — creativesoul
What a load of bullshit! — creativesoul
Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me. — Tom Storm
All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.
You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.
— creativesoul
I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP. — Mikie
You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you?
— creativesoul
Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear. — Mikie
But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed? — Mikie
To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre. — Mikie
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.