I find your explanation fascinating. Thank you. I never heard of institutional facts versus brute facts before. That language becomes an institutional fact is, for me, a very stimulating thought.

↪Olivier5
Well in the first two hundred years of Islamic rule nothing was created. Only when Ommavid Califate was replaced with a more tolerant Abbasid they started to produce significant scientific and philosophical content.
There is a lot of discussions about the early military success of Islamic armies, the main two reasons:
50 years of devasting war between the eastern roman empire and Sasanid Persia, and egalitarian preachment and equality (of men). Military success is not a sign of civilization, for example, look at Mongols victories. — Hooman

Thank you for stating the importance of liberty and entrepreneurship to scientific advancement and wealth.

:lol: Your statement about civilization and the Mongols is delightful! Also, Sparta is well known for its military strength and failure to develop in other ways. Our education for technology for military and industrial purposes has the US on the path of being Spartans rather than Athenians, with a mass dependent on government and industry to provide them employment, rather than their own entrepreneurship and community ties. Who can compete with the big box stores and third-world cheap labor? It is my understanding Islam has a different understanding of a good economy.

However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told.
— Athena

But that doesn’t mean that there is no truth in those stories.]/quote]

Right, and the stories of Tory turned out to be true, so does that make the ancient understanding of the gods is true? All religions and philosophies support the human good. The Christian deification of Jesus and belief that somehow we must be saved by him is not true, and that Christian belief is extremely problematic because it denies so many truths, such as the shared goodness of people and the truth of evolution.
— Apollodorus

Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age.
— Athena

I don’t think there is any evidence for that. There was no “Dark Ages” in the Greek East.

The modern argument is the Orthodox Christians are still in the Dark Ages.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/the-orthodox-church-stays-in-the-dark-ages

Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed.
— Athena

They didn’t rebel against the Law. Christians rebelled against animal sacrifices, rituals and dietary regulations that in their opinion distracted from true spirituality. The core of the Law, consisting of the Ten Commandments, was preserved intact.

:grimace: How is that different from rebelling against the law? When God commands something, isn't that the law? Did not God speak through Mose who gave us the commandments? The whole belief is based on believing human beings got revelations from God. Some of those revelations were scientifically correct and Christianity began harmful when it said those commandments did not need to be followed, putting faith in miracles and fear of demons, above good health practices, and eventually burning Jews as witches.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made.
— Athena

Not at all. There is no connection between one and the other. As already stated, Christianity built upon what was already there in Classical and other traditions. And we can’t deny the fact that modern science developed in the West, not in Arabia.

:grimace: This is so hard, if it had been for what others achieved Europe would still be in the Dark Ages. It would not have the math that made a huge difference. It would not have printing nor the paper essential to making books, so it would not literacy. And the huge difference is not the religion people have, but their natural resources, a seaport, and good trade routes, and Christians would not have had those trade routes without eastern technology that made it possible to fenture far from land. In no way did Christianity make things better in the west, except for the Hellenism and Roman imperialism that separated Christianity from Judaism.

Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak?
— Athena

I think this may be another modern era myth. Of course, some Jews were involved in monetary transactions. But large-scale money lending (at interest!) was already practiced by Christian estates controlled by monasteries and the Church.

That is denying the Christians were as opposed to usury and being materialistic as the Muslims. And it also denies the evils that came with industrialization, the very reason both Christianity and Moslems had moral restraints. Puritans came out of Calvinism and Calvinism flipped the whole money issue from being an evil to being proof that one is blessed and chosen by God. We have a problem when a belief is not grounded in facts and in this care that includes denying the evils that go with the pursuit of money to argue our wealth is because God blesses us. :shade: :naughty: There for our military is God's" power and glory" and it is our destiny to eliminate those who block our pursuits of wealth, such as the USSR, the oil-rich nations and Cubans.

There was some initial opposition to commercial activities by the clergy and monks but by the 1100's this was no longer the case and capitalism was able to develop without hindrance from the Church. There was nothing comparable in the Islamic world where production and exchange came increasingly under the control of the state. It was the economic freedom in Christian Europe that made the difference IMO.

Yes, and the British merchants became increasingly under the control of the British government because self-centered people focused on profit are not good people. Want they were doing in India was terrible!
You are effectively saying it is a good thing for landowners to throw people off the land and fence in that land to keep people off it so that it can be used for raising sheep and having a bigger profit than the old agrarian system. And there is nothing wrong with industry buying people's children to use as slave labor with no regard for the health and emotional well-being of the children. You might want to deal with our ugly history and immediate problems, instead of staying within a religious fantasy. We did not get here through the blessing of a God. Our wealth is the result of a lot of human suffering, and giving God credit for our blessings might be a problem with logic. :brow:

As I said on another thread, also the hypothetical Gore administration would have gone to Afghanistan. And to respond to a terrorist attack with a military attack was something that already the Reagan administration had done. It's really, really difficult to think that Americans would have after 9/11. If Bush would have negotiated with the Taliban and gotten them to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US, likely then he would have lost the next election. Even ironic is the Peace-deal that Trump made with the Taliban: they would immediately accepted such a paper in September/October 2001.

The issue never was what to do with Afghanistan. Or how to win...an insurgency of one's own making. — ssu

ago — Athena

Well thank you for mentioning Reagan. Let us take this back a little further to Eisenhower and the establishment of the Military-Industrial Complex in the US. The Germans, or actually the Prussians gave us the model for this, so I wanted to clarify the intentional US adoption of what we defended our democacy against.

Bush had no desire to avoid war because he was with the neocons. The neocons fully understand the power and glory of the Military-Industrial Complex and I think about 99% of US citizens are complete ingnorant of it and what their tax dollars are supporting.

I have no idea why you said Gore would have invaded a country that did not pose a threat to the US? If Kucinich had won the election and become our democratic president, the US would not have gone to war. Kucinich would have lead the US in mourning 9/11 and he would have encouraged the sympathy of all nations including Muslim ones that had not yet become our enemy. Our nation would have taken a completely different path and we would not be in the mess we are in now. And I want to point out the neocons did their best to get Bill Clinton to go to war with Iraq and he opposed such a war.

Reagan was 100% in favor of US military control of the mid-east. He was so supportive of this that he slashed domestic budgets at the height of a long recession caused by OPEC embargoing oil to the US, and poured all our money into military spending. Texas was behind Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush, and Cheney. And by the way, the most important reason for you to elect someone for being President is this person's stand on abortion. Those right to lifers are the biggest supporters of wars that kill thousands of non-Christian people and display the Power and Glory of their God and their nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jm-2WfTvk

I am all in favour of peace, but the US not engaging in war before Korea is false, it entered the first and second world war on the side of the allies, it fought wars against Mexico and Spain to name but a few and during and before those, it managed to slaughter the native American population and massacre each other from 1861 to 1864. The US has a nice track record when it comes to going to war. I am not bashing the US here by the way, it is not judgment, just fact.

You seem to curiously relate politics to theology to mathematics... why though is beyond me, creating some odd mathematical mysticism that you seem to want our kids to learn. If you want to make a point about the usefulness of the triangle as a metaphor and its perennial use in theology, politics and philosophy, than you have an interesting point. However, you hang way too much on it and it breaks the whole wall apart you have been masoning here. — Tobias

What I said is the US demobilized after wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is not a false statement.

Do you know what the Masons are? Do you know several of the US founding fathers were Masons? If you do, you should know they designed Washington D.C. and the US government with an understanding of the power of math and form.

Also since the beginning of civilizations religion has given governments legitimacy. And in a slightly different take on the importance of the gods, the Capitol Building in D.C. has a mural of the gods that make a republic strong. This link will explain what the gods have to do with the democracy of the US. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/capitol-story/apotheosis-washington They go with being a Mason and the founding fathers' thrill of making history as we move closer to a new age. If you understand these gods, you know what math and science have to do with our democracy.

You seem to curiously relate politics to theology to mathematics... why though is beyond me, creating some odd mathematical mysticism that you seem to want our kids to learn
— Tobias

Good point. — jgill

Not a good point. A misunderstanding. Look, to me Pi is absolutely mystical. It seems perfectly logical to me to think math is mystical, but it does not come with supernatural notions.

However, Christianity does get us all snarled up with superstition so I can appreciate your reluctance to consider the importance of math in relation to rule by reason. But it is very important to understand the trinity of God is what separates Islam from Christianity. Interestingly the Arabs agreed with Christian notions so it adopted Christianity instead of Judaism, but it could not accept the trinity of God, so it accepted Jesus as a profit, not as a god. I want this to be clearly understood to improve the chances of using reason to bring about peace. The real break between Islam and Christianity is the argument of one god or three. It is different ways of understanding the power of the trinity as one or three separate gods.

The trinity of the American republic's government is as important as the trinity of God and this is devoid of superstitious notions. It is understanding the power of the trinity is like the reason a stool has 3 legs. A stool with only two legs would never work. Three, the trinity is very important. I don't think we want Trump on a unicycle no matter how entertaining he is.

What you perform here is a 'no true scotsman' falacy. You state that a democracy is defined as rule by reason and when I object you tell me it is no longer a democracy if it is not. That way you simply define democracy to suit your own terms. However, in no literature have I ever come across such a definition. The rule of law maybe, but the rule by reason? It is also very unclear what that is supposed to mean.
I am also interested what you consider to be the 'German model'. Last time I checked German education was quite good environmentally friendly and very pro democracy. — Tobias

I love that, if you have not read what I am saying is so about democracy, it must not be so? Is there Christianity without charity? Well, there is not democracy without reasoning.

The problem is democracy does not have one book that is the authority on what democracy is. However, we have the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reason and democracy is an imitation of the gods. We also have Socrates and Plato who speak against democracy because people can be persuaded by bad reasoning. Which in Socrate's day lead to a war with Sparta and Athens lost! He was pretty displeased with Athen's democracy but he gave his life to support it and freedom of speech. His life was devoted to teaching better reasoning and expanding the conscience. In his explanation of the Republic, it would-be philosophers who rule. In the past, the US attempted to prepare everyone for democracy, so we have a republic that through education had a culture for democracy.

In old test books, democracy is defined like this "Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." From the Democracy Series and among the characteristics of democracy is "the search for truth". It also explains democracy thrives on criticism. We prepared the young for democracy with reading that built moral character and was focused on learning concepts and speaking well. Education was about good citizenship and that included lifelong learning essential to being a well-informed and responsible citizen. Our notion of liberty came with education for good moral judgment.

Then we have Cicero “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Before education for technology, we were educated for liberty and justice and a democratic way of life.

When the Prussians took control of Germany, they centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose. They had a Christian Republic but it was authoritarian, and that is what the US has become. That is not what we defended in two world wars.

The problem is that democracy is not necessarily rule by reason. Democracy is rule by popular will but this will might not be reasonable. You also seem to suggest that the concept of the trinity as three aspects is somehow based in math and therefore more reasonable. Moreover that therefore people holding that view are less prone to killing. That all is false. the ISlamic god is just as mathematically reasonable because rooted in the number one. Also Christians that did all recognise the trinity killed each other mercilessly see the 30 years war in Europe. — Tobias

When a democracy is no longer rule by reason, it is no longer a legitimate democracy. Education is essential to democracy and that is not education for technology! Because the US replaced liberal education with the German model of education for technology, it is now what it defended its democracy against. A police state serving military might, and self-destructing because of reactionary politics. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended,

A saw is not a more reasonable tool than a hammer your logic seems wrong to me. I think in general Americans need a better understanding of their mathematical heritage. Many of the founding fathers were Masons and the trinity is three forces keeping each other in check and balance. If anyone becomes weak, the triangle breaks and the democracy ends.

Let me clarify, absolutely, the trinity is three aspects or three forces, and this knowledge is based on math and therefore is good reasoning. That knowledge is essential to a population that wants democracy.

My reasoning is not false but the people in the US are ignorant of math, logos, and cause and effect. They are not only ignorant but their thinking is way too short-term and narrow! The US entering the mid-east to control oil and establish strategic power there, was sure to be expressive and have unpleasant ramifications. Doing so has seriously weakened the US, or at least Biden's hold on power, as the mistakes of the past are now in his lap. I hate to think of what will happen if this results in Trump's return to power because Trump is destructive to our relationship with our allies when these relationships are more important than ever before. My point is bad reasoning gets bad results, and good reasoning gets good results and democracy is about understanding that.

Our democracy in the US, was not only less prone to war, but intentionally unable to engage in war because we demobilized our military force at the end of wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is the point in time when we because the Military-Industrial Complex we defended our democracy against in two world wars. During the first world war, we were best known for our missionaries and charity and it took us a year to mobilize for war. Around the world, we were known for being anti-war and working for peace. One step to world peace was President Kennedy's Peace Core, which is sent around the world to help people resolve serious problems and have better lives, without military force.

I had not thought of monads apart from Leibniz's mathematical contributions. I now see that there is much more to the monad than I knew. Thanks for bringing this up. :cool: — jgill

You might appreciate the book A Beginner's Guide to the Constructing the Universe- the Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science, by Michael S. Schneider. That clarifies how math became science and is a good understanding of the foundation of logic and philosophical thought.

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?
— Athena

Why should this be the relevant dichotomy? — baker

Because it is the difference between the police state we have become or having the democracy we think we have. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. Until 1958 the priority purpose of education in the US was education for good moral judgment and good citizenship. The 1950 National Defense Education Act ended that and replaced it with education for the Military-Industrial complex which is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. Now a guard stands at the door of our hospital and we can not enter without the covid protocol and the question "are you carrying a weapon" with a security guard standing there in case you are stupid enough to say you are carrying a weapon. This came about when we called in the National Gaurd to help our overwhelmed hospital. Years ago, our Social Security office gained a permanent armed security guard. Just about any place I go, there are armed security guards and this is not the reality I grew up with. We are relying on authority for social order, not culture.

When I point out the issue of membership in a religious/spiritual community, I do this for the following reason:
In order for a person to properly conduct the religious/spiritual practices of a religion and to attain its goal, the person must be at least the member of said religion's epistemic community. Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that).

Otherwise, the person just dabbles on in a religion/spirituality, never attaining what he was supposed to attain (and possibly wasting a lot of time and resources).

The Celts are gone, so one cannot become a member of their epistemic community; and even if they would still exist, it's questionable whether they would see outsiders as fit to practice their religion/spirituality.
The situation with the Native Americans (what is left of them) is similar as far as outsiders are concerned.

It's tempting to read about the spiritual beliefs of this or that religion/spirituality, such as the Native Americans, and to think that one could practice those beliefs. It is not clear that one can meaningfully do so, unless one is actually a member of theirs. — baker

I truly like what you said. Let us work with "Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that)".

We have one planet. Science has caught up with the notion that of Gia, and the planet being a living organism, and knowing we are killing the organs of this organism we call earth. What is more sacred than living in harmony with the planet that gives us life?

Next point- logos, reason is the controlling force of the universe.

The 10 tribes that agreed to become one nation were the Sioux, Mississippian, Apache, Navajo, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw, Cherokee and the Iroquois. The Shoshone and Anishinaabe joined the federation two years later. These people carry the belief that a man gave them the way of peace, that is our human capacity for reason. Democracy is rule by reason if people understand that or not. It was understood by Greeks and the Native Americans. It is democracy that gave us peace, not religion!

Can we put that together with what you said binds us as a community? We take from the earth and we carry an obligation to our earth and all life on the earth. We achieve agreements and have peace through reason.

That's your belief, one certainly not shared by many others. — baker

That is our sacred duty as indigenous people have understood it since the beginning of time.

No idea was ever shared by many until it was communicated to others. The tribes did not live in peace, until a man gave them with the idea that peace is possible through reason. Ideas are like safety pins. When people understand the benefit of one, everyone wants it. When there is a problem, that is a lack of good reasoning. Our sacred duty at this time is not only to our earth and all life, but also to learn all we can from the geologists, archeologists, and related sciences and to rethink what we believe is true so that we might know truth. We are at a crossroads. Either we enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny, or we self-destruct. We need philosophy to make that transition.

Simply put it: Americans created their own narrative about the war and for the reasons to fight the war without any interest or thought given either to Afghans, Afghan internal politics or neighboring countries and their objectives. That's the real reason. And you can see it in the commentary now given by Joe Biden extremely well. — ssu

We have plenty of agreement. What happened was all about the neocon agenda that included Cheney and Bush jr. and the New Century American Project with the goal of securing military control of the mid-east. The neo-cons defined their goal and how they would achieve it, long before 9/11.
https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/project_for_the_new_american_century/.

These folks should have been charged with war crimes long ago, and the Christian Right needs to see how they have been manipulated to achieve military goals that were not about national defense, but the "Power and Glory" the neocons wanted. I am hoping for a history book that reveals the truth including the manipulation of the Christian Right and the real abortion rights political goal. These right to lifer's were thrilled to watch us destroy Iraq with bombs of mass destruction calling this our "Power and Glory" associating it with the power and glory of God. No civilization has more innocent blood its hands than Christian America.

That is why I reacted strongly to you saying "These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches". I do not feel rosy about the lies we were told and the reason the lies could be sold to Christians. It is obvious we were not there for our defense nor to help Afghanistan succeed. And throwing money at these problems is not the answer either. Maybe if we drop religion and start thinking about how the world really works, we might come up with solutions.

Trade didn't even come to be an issue: trade and economic issues are mainly for peacetime. Not when you are fighting a war (and utterly losing it), you don't care about trade and the economy. These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches. — ssu

Who was fighting a war other than the neocons? Other than making things worse and a guilty conscience what else have we gotten out of our investment in the mid-east? Good results require right thinking. I don't see what we have done, as right-thinking. The results sure have not been good!

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has never provided a full accounting of the costs of America's so-called “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq. But researchers at Brown University estimate that the U.S. has spent $5.8 trillion on the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.Sep 1, 2021 — USA Today

:lol: That last line was said so delicately it made me laugh. I love to begin the day with a good laugh. I also love it when someone says what I am thinking better than I have. One of the most obvious things in history is when people are trading, things begin to happen. War also seems very helpful We know they are not trading just objects, but thoughts as well, and that stimulates everything.

About math and inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning. I have several hours of lectures done by a math professor and he is a joy to watch because he loves math so much and we seem to be naturally programmed to love math and solving puzzles when it is presented well. That involves pi and our perception of beauty which actually makes us feel joy. The professor can talk for at least two hours about invisible knots such as knots in DNA and how maths helps us see the invisible knots. If we have a question we can use math to get an answer. I really think the Greeks got everything moving in the right direction because they began exploring maths and the notion of proofs. THAT IS WHAT SEPARATED THE GREEKS FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT WAS TRAPPED IN SUPERSTITION.

The Greeks also had many gods and I think this was highly important to stimulating thinking. I don't think we would have gotten to where we are today if we began with one god. Many gods, is seeing life through many perspectives and like trading, when one idea bounces into another there are new ideas. Trinity-
"The Triad is the form of the completion of all things". Nichomachus of Gerasa c. 100 A.D. Greek neo- Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician. Greek concepts were essential to accepting a trinity of God and Romans could not do this until they created a word for it, bringing an end to the Jesus wars with those who insisted Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three gods not one. Islam rejects the trinity that can be understood as 3 gods. In Islam Jesus and Mohammed were prophets and they were not deified.

Anyway,can we have an agreement that trading is important to stimulate both the mind and the economy and the US failed to establish regional relationships that are essential to Afghanistan being a healthy country? Agree the problem is Afghanistan's economic and trading problem and its isolation from others, not Islam? Yes?

Christianity emerged within the cultural context of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Christians had a different religion but they had the same Graeco-Roman culture as Pagan citizens of the Roman Empire. And science, as we know it today, emerged within Christian society. — Apollodorus

That is an excellent argument. Our only disagreement at this point appears to be about the Dark Ages.
However, it also goes with Islam encouraging learning and it lead to many Muslims having private libraries filled with the knowledge that was Roman and Greek. And we might say here, that Athenians kept their women home. I think the higher class Romans kept their wives home too, but during the time of Jesus, there was sort of women's liberation movement. None of the females were got the status of disciples but they were important enough to be mentioned in the New Testament and it seems women played a strong role in the acceptance of Christianity.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made. Perhaps we could discuss why the west became a leader? We are dealing with Christians opposing science so how can we see them as the friend of science?

To get back to the subject of this thread, we could discuss the Muslims who think they are morally superior, and do they have justification for this? I think they do. However, there was a time when Christians were just as opposed to the materialism, and therefore, the capitalism of today. The industrial revolution came with extremes in wealth and poverty and strong arguments against the lack of morals or industry. We might find it easier to have peace with the Muslims if we look at what they share in common with Christianity, instead of painting them as the enemy. Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak?

But why single out Christians? The Jews got much of their religion and culture from neighboring peoples — Apollodorus

That is a delicious question. Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed. Either the Hebrews had a special connection with God and knew God's truth or they did not. Changing it is heresy.

"Heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine". Oxford languages. Whoo, what a cheat that is to say "especially Christian" as though it were not the Christians who committed the heresy when they stole the authority to define God's truth from the Jews. And then deny the Muslims their definition of the same God's truth.

But this is not what I am doing. What I am saying is that Christian culture (and to some extent religion) is based on Classical (Greek and Roman) culture.

Christianity emerged within the cultural context of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Christians had a different religion but they had the same Graeco-Roman culture as Pagan citizens of the Roman Empire. And science as we know it today emerged within Christian society. — Apollodorus

For sure Christianity is a blend of Judaism and Hellenism. It is also a blend of Egyptian religion and Persian religion. However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told. Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age. It did not come out of the Dark Age until the rediscovery of pagan documents and the genius of men like Bacon who picked up the philosophical ball and ran with it. Christianity does not get the credit for our progress and growing human potential. It would hold us back in the days of Jesus's time, just like the Taliban are trying to do, if it could. It is about a kingdom with slaves, not a democracy and liberty. The US experiment in democracy with liberty was not expected to succeed.

I strongly agree that too much time is squandered in philosophical disputes in which it seems there is no objective standard or criterion available to settle the matter. I suggest it's one of the more important tasks of the philosopher to identify such controversies and put them to rest. — Cabbage Farmer

Maybe in the next hundred years, I will learn to think with the clarity many people here have. I love your words "objective standard or criterion available". Isn't the object to make you look like an ass so everyone thinks I won the argument? :lol: I definitely am not serious and I don't see that much here, but in political forums that seems to be the mentality. The point is a clear question and objective standard or criterion for answering it is true thinking. Just reacting to someone is not the process of thinking that reasoning requires. But I have so much to learn before I can achieve the goal of good reasoning. I only have a vague understanding of the terms you used. My brain is still like a wild horse that could bound off in any direction rather than conform to an objective standard or criterion.

It is a fact. But we constructed it. In nature this does not exist. It's projected by means of a mathematical net. Thrown over the physical universe. There are no inherent areas of circles. After the orojection only. — Rstotalloss

Let me announce I do not know math. It is an awesome mystery to me. That said pi is about circles and it is important to the engineering of airplanes for connecting with a satellite that determines where the plane is at all times, and the mechanics of the tail flap. That makes me wonder if birds use pi to navigate?

Well for one, the power to make a bet by stating that I'm making one. It's a fact that I made that bet; a fact made true by the fact that I stated that I made it (is that not how bets are made?) — InPitzotl

That is a good one. I guess you would win that bet.

I'll bet you $5 that I can make something a fact just by saying it. — InPitzotl

Hum, what mystical power do you have that you can make something a fact? Any of us can state a fact but how can we make one?

I'd like to hear what you think. — Banno

Oh my, as I just said about words and math, I am not sure of this metaphysical reality. It is not 3-dimensional physical reality. Pi is mind-blowing with some definite mystical qualities. We can not even think of it without a word to name it or a symbol to represent it, but as we have explored pi we have discovered it has profound consequences in our lives.

Yes, the same facts can be expressed in different languages. There are facts of conformation and characteristic that have been criteria for classification of animals, plants and other natural kinds; that seems to be what you are getting at, and I agree. — Janus

Well, it was not my intention to make that point, but it seems to come out of the discussion. I have not given the subject a lot of thought before but through the discussion, I am realizing an appreciation for why we have the word "spell" which means the letters we use for a word and also the power of the word to affect what is so. There is something magical about the word. Like there is something magical about math. This is beyond accepted materialistic thinking and I am not sure if anyone wants to go that far?

My reason for starting this thread is we argue so much about theoretical things that can not be validated and many of our arguments are opinions and not facts. Clear thinking seems to depend on our awareness of the category of our arguments. As I tell the kids arguing in the back seat of my car- stop arguing, we can check the facts, and then we will know who is correct. I love arguing points because you all open my mind and expand my consciousness, but I really hate it when the arguing gets unpleasant and has nothing to do with facts!

Okay, Christianity is no better than Judaism or Islam and I am done with this thread if you all want to turn this thread against Muslims as though it were not the same patriarchy as the other two. I will not tolerate that because it is not just an intellectual debate but the words of religious war. No forum should tolerate those words of war. It is too serious and the enemy of all women and children.

It has happened in many places. And it is happening gradually. By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun.

Women in Afghanistan have not fought against Islam. Those who have done so have been a minority and the results are quite clear, IMO. — Apollodorus

Kind of like in the US don't you think? Some states still have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. The Bible does say the man is to be head of household. Like Islam is the same religion as Christianity and Judaism. Just like Mormons and Jehova Witnesses and Southern Baptist are the same religion but from slightly different perspectives. My X husband and my friend's husbands were as controlling as the males in Afghanistan and Women's Liberation has made a big difference. I think we know what those women are fighting against because we had to fight the fight.

Is what not a fact? That animals we've classified as canines are what we've classified them as? That they share certain characteristics we used to define the box we put them in?

Call it a fact if you like. I wouldn't. I'd agree that it's a fact this is how zoologists classify animals. It's a fact that I have to work today. It's a fact that men landed on the moon in 1969. It's a fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeap, I think what you said is a fact. I think you are working really hard to have an argument. :lol: Isn't that a little uptight? Maybe the main cause of the violence in our society is people taking themselves way too seriously and believing they have something to fight about. You might try some peaceful music and chill out.

St John of Damascus, a Christian scholar who lived in the early days of Islamic rule in Syria, investigated the current claims regarding the Koran and was told that the Koran was given to Mohammad in a dream. He also found out that Mohammad obtained knowledge of Christian scriptures from his close companions some of whom were Christians (of whom there were many in Arabia at the time). He concluded that "This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments, devised his own heresy". — Apollodorus

Both Jews and Christians were abundant in his region.

Muhammad's views on Jews - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › Muhammad's_views_on_Jews
The Islamic prophet Muhammad's views on Jews were formed through the contact he had with Jewish tribes living in and around Medina. His views on Jews ... — Wikipedia

I think it is ridiculous to believe Muhammad got his ideas through supernatural means. To me, it is ridiculous to believe in revealed religion. At least 5 Biblical stories are plagiarized Sumerian stories including the Garden of Eden and the flood. Abraham coming from Ur, a former Sumerian city where any literate person could study the archives created by the Sumerians.

If anyone committed heresy it was the Christians! I think Christians have some gall to create a new "revealed religion" and pick and choose what they wanted from the revealed religion of Jews and then say the Muslims committed heresy because the Muslims did the same thing the Christians did. Adjust the religion for their culture, just as Hellenism made it necessary to adjust Judaism. That is some nerve. Then you all kill each other with the egotistical notion of being God's favored people and the only ones to know God's truth. I am sorry but this nonsense that is taking people's lives is not acceptable.

Good idea. European Christians were educated in institutions run by the clergy. The catechetical schools founded in the early days of Christianity at Alexandria and Antioch were run by the Church. Professors from ecclesiastical and lay schools later formed universities like that of Bologna. This shows that Christianity did value and promote knowledge and explicates the important fact that science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else. — Apollodorus

Are you crediting Christianity for science? I really don't think so. It absolutely did not carry the logical structure for science. Aristotle gave us a good structure for logic and it was the foundation of scholastic education, but there was a huge backlash to Aristotle because it supported church authority, and did not advance scientific thinking.

Aristotle's logic - Why Aristotelian logic does not workhttps://www.abelard.org › category › category
This false 'logic' lies at the heart of authoritarianism, conflict, and a great deal of inadequate 'science'. You are either for us or against us. He 'is' 'good ... — abelard

Granted for awhile the school at Alexandria relied on philosophers to bridge between the rich philosophical conscoiusness including knowledge of math and an attempt to understand the natural world and medicine free of superstitutions notions, but the was ended by... "The Council of Constantinople, convened in 381", a little while after the death of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, "had far-reaching effects for Egypt". After declaring the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at the expense of Alexandrian authority, riots destroyed the school. — Wikipedia

And the west slide into the Dark Ages because the Church cut off the wisdom of older civilizations. Let us be clear about this. The Dark Ages were dark because of the power struggle and who it. You can not claim the pagan progress as the Christian good, because the Church cut us off that.

Not even the later decision to once again use Aristotle to support Church authority can give the Church credit for the scientific thinking that followed the renaissance because Aristotle's logic was not good for science. Aristotle's logic is deductive reasoning. Science is inductive reasoning. Francis Bacon is the father of inductive reason and this would not have been possible when the Church was persecuting anyone who spoke of something not approved by the Church.

His works are seen as developing the scientific method and remained influential through the scientific revolution.[6] — Wikipedia

We could not have good reasoning for science until the Protestant Reformation weakened the power of the Church. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, there was hope that science would reveal God, but this was dashed when it became obvious the earth was not the center of the universe. This truth was harder for the Protestants to accept than the Catholics because the Protestants depended on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Catholics were comfortable with rationalizing reality and the word of God to fit their theology. Protestants continue to stand in the way of science with Texas attempting to force schools to teach creationism as science. Texas teachers had to turn to the supreme court to stop that.

So while you might want to give Christians credit for the wisdom of pagan civilizations, only by eliminating facts can this be done.

And you claim facts are the result of observation. What observations shows Riemann and Lobachevsky that π r² is not a fact? — Banno

Interesting question. If we had no mathematical symbols could we have mathematical facts?

Of course it is people (not the public) who decides what is fact and what is not. But that means they decide what they take to be fact and what they do not. Are you denying that they might be wrong and what they take to be fact might not be? — Janus

Our brains are relatively useless without language and language without classifications would make scientific thinking impossible. In different regions of the earth, people will have different names for cats and dogs, water and air, etc. so the exact name may not matter, but the ability to classify what is being named does matter.

It's true. I wouldn't call it a fact, but you can if you like. It's provable. It's also uninformative.

And sometimes dogs turn out to be coyotes. — Srap Tasmaner

Domestic dogs and coyotes, wolves, foxes etc. are dogs, or more scientifically precise, canines. The animal's characteristics determine the biological family to which it belongs. That is imperialistic and it works for organizing our thinking. Something Sumerians could not do because they did not have words for different biological groups such as trees and bushes. We have words for classifying plants and animals. A bush is not a tree and a tree is not a bush, but all trees share characteristics in common and all bushes share characteristics in common. All canines share characteristics in common and belong to one family called canines. They are distinctly different from cats or felidae. If that is not a fact please explain.

But whether it will be harmful in the long run? No, because like Christianity itself, Islam will also eventually have its values and principles questioned, doubts that will change the world again. — Gus Lamarch

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have.

Okay, being pragmatic I will settle for evidence.

No can do. Evidence is all you're ever going to get.

Anyway, that's the party line. I don't have a solid alternative to offer. — Srap Tasmaner

So if a dog is a dog, that is not a fact? How many things can exist and not be factual?

But Hume.

The "provable true or false" definition seems to be widely used in "critical thinking" curricula, and it's what Pew used in a recent survey -- more as a definition of "factual" really -- but to a lot of philosophers the word "prove" there is going to mean the word "fact" might as well not exist. — Srap Tasmaner

Okay but I am pragmatic. I want empirical proof. And to me, the structure for a proof that can prove something that is totally ridiculous is true is not a fact, but a good reason to seek a better way to determine if something is true, because obviously, that logic structure is not doing the job.

Yes. The Celts, Native Americans, and others will rapidly kick out an impostor.
Their spirituality might seem "more true", "more natural", but they will never accept you as an equal member unless you were born and raised by them. And even then there's no guarantee. — baker

There are accounts of an outsider being accepted by a tribe. A tribe being a relatively small group of people who know each other and who is related to whom. Religion takes us beyond the tribal limits. However, the 3 God of Abraham religions are also tribal in nature. Including outsiders was for sure a problem for Hebrews and also Athenians. We are still struggling with that today. Like how can someone who looks different from me, be an equal member of my group? If that person can't even speak my language, how can that person be one of us? I don't think the outsider is one of us, however, there are steps to being one of us.

↪Athena What does it mean to have a "spiritual notion" in the first place? Does it mean that we are allowed to use unnecessary entities in our interpretations(because I spotted some) or to be poetic about facts of reality? Is there an other practical value of this notion(to avoid a possible false dichotomy) — Nickolasgaspar

That is an excellent question. For me, it is a feeling of being one with the universe. It is having deep respect for all life and seeing our planet and a living organism that needs to be protected. It is an appreciation for the gifts of nature, and not taking them for granted. But I can only speak for myself. I do not have the authority to speak for anyone else.

I would say the practical value is not destroying our planet and not going to war. Self-defense is probably a good idea, but we might want to start that with consideration for others and reasoning with them. Sending drones to kill unknown people is not okay. Dropping nuclear bombs is not okay. Destroying the environment of indigenous people so I can extract the mineral resources in their ground is not okay.

According to the Bible, God created us in his own image, which implies that in some way we are godlike already. This seems to be the implication of some NT statements: — Apollodorus

Only if everything else is also of the spirit. If anything is not of the spirit, there is separation. We live disconnected from mother earth and our brothers and sisters who are different from us. That god in heaven is very different from the spirit of our planet, a living organism, and life.

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God

Are you using that to argue we are not separate from God? I do not follow that logic. If we are spiritual beings having a human experience, there is nothing to receive, except maybe knowledge of "the word", logos, the controlling force of the universe. We are not born all-knowing, but only with the capacity for learning.

Being godlike by birth, humans have the potential to manifest their divinity by becoming perfect like God. — Apollodorus

Is this true of all animals? Then let us erect our totem poles, because I really do not believe a God made us different from the rest of the animal realm, except we have the power of language. What does it mean to be God-like? Most often I hear the indignant comment " do you think you are god?" Or "playing God." meaning we should not attempt to control what happens. If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. That is painful. So the pain of separation becomes a justification for our need of God and then we must turn to a religious authority to tell us of God and explain sin to us, even though Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. That looks like really bad logic to me.

I think more complex societies tend to be more hierarchical than less complex ones. Humanity cannot revert to nomadism. — Apollodorus

That is a true statement. We can know about 600 people. That means in a city with 6000 people most of them are going to be strangers. Things get more bureaucratic and less personal when there are more people. Before we reach the limit of our ability to know each other, things are handled personally. You do something I don't like, and I hit you, or maybe I tell others what you did and they will stop being friendly with you. If the conflict gets bad enough one of us leaves with his friends and establish and camp far away. At this point, there was a creator and maybe animals that were talked about in stories. There is a sense of equality with animals and likely everything has its own spirit. Nothing is separate from the life force. We can know these things through the sciences that study humans, and archeology, anthropology.

Then in Sumer and elsewhere, we see many gods. Large populations now require bureaucracies to manage the lives of people who live together as strangers. It becomes obvious one god can not do everything so there is a bureaucracy of gods. Every time a new concept is discovered, there is a new god and this becomes a big problem because the population of gods gets too big and unmanageable. This brings on the study of the gods and a search for the one true god. Eventually, we get to secular laws and people forget the gods. What is concerning to me, is the externalization of God and the move from nature to supernatural beings, and our separation from our own spiritual consciousness and authority. Relying on what a religious leader tells us is so, instead of our own spirituality, cuts us off from the spirit that is in all things and these sad people can live in fear of a revengeful, punishing, and fearsome God, and suffer a sense of being cut off from Him. The degree to which bureaucracies, including bureaucratic religions, control our lives threatens our liberty and our spiritual experience.

Unfortunately, there are no Ancient Celts available to confirm that this was their actual view. After all, they never put their beliefs into writing.

And I don't think Christianity holds us separate from God. It is for the individual believer to hold themselves as far or as near to God as they choose.

In any case, Christianity teaches its followers to see the Spirit of God in his Creation and states that the human body is the temple or dwelling place of God:

Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God? (1 Cor. 6:19) — Apollodorus

We have a spirit that is never separate from us. That spirit may be happy or sad, but it is not external like a God we can reject or who can reject us. Perhaps you are saying the Holy Ghost is equal to our spirit but then why associate it with a God who is external to our being? I think we are quibbling over the meaning of words, as the Christians who killed each other over the argument of if Jesus was the son of God or God himself, was a problem of language. Some holding the trinity of God was making 3 gods out of one with others thinking all three are different aspects of the same thing.

This difference between a god and spirit is very problematic. Let's see, spirit and ghost can mean the same thing. So the term would be I am the spirit of God-made flesh?

It depends on how "real" you wish to attribute the non-human entities and spirit(s) said belief systems revolve around. As I would guess you are doing now, you can easily have a philosophical discussion while dismissing them as more "ideas", constructs, or placeholders for ideas we create as opposed to a what many believe, true actual beings that may or may not influence the world we live in. That changes things quite a bit.

For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.

On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.


We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire.
— Athena

Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.

If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).

So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.

In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow. — Outlander

Your post contains so many thoughts I can not absorb them all at one time so I have attempted to file your post where it will be easy for me to find it and digest more slowly. I am not sure but I think you are associating our physical form with evil and that we need a God to liberate us from that? Please correct me if I am wrong. As I said I see a lot in your post and can not digest it all at once. For me, this is a huge field full of flowers and I want to smell all of them.

You triggered my notion of the gods being concepts and saying incantations, is the way to activate their power. Oh, oh, this is so much fun! :grin: Without a word for a concept, we can not be aware of it. Our consciousness being very dependent on words. Demeter is the goddess of motherhood and a troubled mother may call on her for help in being a better mother. We know this works, but does that mean the goddess is real? If we have the concept, how can that not be real? And in the beginning, was the word.

Also, you triggered my memory of a Hindu explanation of our physical needs being excessive and that we need to learn to control ourselves. I liked the Hindu explanation far better than the Christian one. I think the concept of evil is problematic, and for sure focusing on evil makes it powerful. So if we need to loose weight, our focus needs to be on what we want, not on what we do not want.

For your use of the word "institution". An institution is something that I understand to be external to me. I may want to be part of an institution for learning that expands my consciousness but not an institution such as a prison, that is about restricting my freedom. I think you said institutions are about restricting our freedom. An institution may require a sacrifice of liberty the benefit the institution adds to our life? The institution and sacrifice is a concept we might expand further. I think such institutions are associated with technology and advancing human potential, but we may have to sacrifice some liberty for the benefit.