↪Hanover, ↪Athena asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. ↪Ciceronianus suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue. — Banno

good is rewarded, evil is punished, — schopenhauer1

Yes that is an ominous change in the lexicon.

Ideology enforcement is what I was ranting about. Having an ideology isn’t in itself bad. It is good actually. Encourages people to think if all goes well. At worst it is imposed on others or forced in society. Theron lies the problem — Metaphyzik

This goes along with the uniquely Israelite spin on a god who protects his people if they maintain their faith in him. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, there is no way you can read that text and not come away with the impetus of it, which is that faithfulness in God is what is necessary. — schopenhauer1

Mao tse dong and the cultural revolution. Millions starve when farmers were supposed to do their own industry, and city workers grow their own crops. — Metaphyzik

IMHO there is no more problem with one religion more than another…. They are all capable of the worst traits imaginable. — Metaphyzik

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌidēˈäləjē,ˌīdēˈäləjē/
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar:
beliefs
ideas
ideals
principles
doctrine
creed
credo
teaching
dogma
theory
thesis
tenets
canon(s)
conviction(s)
persuasion
opinions
position
ethics
morals
2.
ARCHAIC
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. — Oxford Languages

You've not described the decision process of either atheists or theists. — Hanover

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath of ethics historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath — Wikipedia

The Athenian Oath was recited by the citizens of Athens, Greece, more than 2,000 years ago. It is frequently referenced by civic leaders in modern times as a timeless code of civic responsibility.

“We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this City not only, not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.” — Augustaks

The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant.
— Ciceronianus

This is a feature that many faithful are loath to claim. Fundamentalists (whatever faith) not only claim it, they get high on it. — BC

Do Atheists all not agree as to what is moral and yet still proclaim to know it too? — Hanover

Not caring how your words affect me, just got added to you saying I lied. If you want to interact with me you will have to do better. You know, cause and effect. I am not going to play with you if I don't like how you play. Is that an objective moral? — AmadeusD

I doubt it. The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so (a felicitous bit of rhyming, if I don't say so myself). — Ciceronianus

No? Isn't everybody trying to "rule America"? Isn't it becoming commonly accepted that so-called "liberal neutrality" was always farcical? There is a real sense in which progressivism quickened the demise of liberalism, but in this it only quickened the inevitable. Historically and in truth a separation between religion and politics is altogether artificial, and where separation is enforced quasi-religious ideologies sprout like weeds. — Leontiskos

We live in countries where the values, ethics, customs, etc., are based on Christian principles. If we look at the banknotes of the USA, it says: In God We Trust. The currency of a nation rests in a religious sentence. And so more around the Western countries, not just the United States. — javi2541997

"In God We Trust" (also rendered as "In God we trust") is the official motto of the United States[1][2][3] as well as the motto of the U.S. state of Florida, along with the nation of Nicaragua (Spanish: En Dios confiamos).[4][5] It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956, replacing E pluribus unum ("Out of many, one"), which had been the de facto motto since the initial design of the Great Seal of the United States.[6]

While the earliest mentions of the phrase can be found in the mid-19th century, the origins of this phrase as a political motto lie in the American Civil War, where Union supporters wanted to emphasize their attachment to God and to boost morale.[7] The capitalized form "IN GOD WE TRUST" first appeared on the two-cent piece in 1864 and initially only appeared on coins, but it gradually became accepted among Americans.[8] Much wider adoption followed in the 1950s. The first postage stamps with the motto appeared in 1954. A law passed in July 1955 by a joint resolution of the 84th Congress (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 84–140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower requires that "In God We Trust" appear on all American currency. This law was first implemented on the updated one-dollar silver certificate that entered circulation on October 1, 1957.[8] The 84th Congress later passed legislation (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 84–851), also signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declaring the phrase to be the national motto.[8][a] Several states have also mandated or authorized its use in public institutions or schools;[9][10] while Florida, Georgia and Mississippi have incorporated the phrase in some of their state symbols. The motto has also been used in some cases in other countries, most notably on Nicaragua's coins.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust — Wikipedia

Your text may be a fairly old one but may signify the role of Rome and Catholicism in ethical and political thinking. I am living in England and wonder to what extent what you are saying comes down to religious fundamentalism in its many forms. The dichotomy of religious beliefs and fundamentalist ideologies may be a strong factor in Amercaj politics and of so many other perspectives. In particular, the dialogue between religious perspectives and thinking may be important, especially where religious, and moral teachings are established.

I don't live in America, so I wonder about the limits of the questioning in relation to both fundamentalism and Catholicism in.America?.Are you interested in American politics alone or the wider scope of politics on a global level?. Also, to what extent may the relationship between politics and religion be considered, and religious thinking in conservative, or traditional thinking of the social order?. — Jack Cummins

↪Athena The pope seems to be having difficulty running his own shop, never mind the U.S. But Christian Nationalism is a real and present danger. Its main feature is its irrationality. A complaint I heard yesterday: Palm Sunday was not listed on a bank calendar -- proof that the state is trying to suppress Christianity. Other themes: White people are under threat. Liberals are a threat. The deep state is a threat. Woke is a threat. Law and order are falling apart. Children are disobedient. Story time with drag queens is a threat.

Really, just about anything / everything. It's difficult to argue with people who are receiving these crazy bat signals. A lot of Nazi dogma was irrational too -- complete nonsense -- but it tied into inchoate prejudices of various kinds. White Christian nationalism likewise taps into discontents that arise from various sources (like the stresses of scientific rationalism on traditional beliefs; increased economic insecurity; social disruption; unwanted social change, etc. etc. etc.) Right-wing propagandists fan the flames of discontent.

Your 1913 book is a reminder that this kind of conspiratorial thinking is not a new phenomenon in American culture, and it isn't so small and weak that it amounts to only a curiosity. The KKK of the 19th century is gone, but new versions have sprung up: different leaders, different followers, different centers of activity, the same bat-shit kind of thinking. — BC

based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming
— Athena

This seems to run quite counter to the science, though. — AmadeusD

Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources.
— Athena

No they aren't. — AmadeusD

No it can't. These concepts were invented by humans. Animals have no notions (possibly, at all, but at least) of these things. — AmadeusD

↪Athena In the 1980's the tension in Australia was always education understood as a blunt tool to get you a job - well paid or otherwise. Education at some point ditched history and context and became obsessed with vocational outcomes rather than wisdom or preparation for an adult civic life. — Tom Storm

I kind of agree, but how would you teach 'the good' in a world where there is no agreement on what the good is or if it is anything more than perspectival. Education would seem to be lot easier in a culture where pluralism and diversity don't exist. — Tom Storm

That's never stopped any civilization. — Vera Mont

Sure, you can buy that... — Vera Mont

I can't understand how this would be the case. Unless you take "the science of morality" to just be sociology focused on social norms? I would also posit that given the extreme expanses of time that would need to be "number crunched" in regard to their moral outputs, lets say, across history, that this science could never be used. — AmadeusD

Not sure how you can say it is hardly a problem. We fail to agree over the fundamental building blocks of civilization itself, forget the flat Earth or vaccine debates - they are symptoms of a bigger issue, aren't they? In increasingly diverse and polarized societies, if there is no shared mainstream narrative, chaos or internecine tribalism would seem to be a consequence. Is it any wonder that some people are calling for a return to religion or Christian values as a kind of nostalgia project, harking back to a perceived golden era? — Tom Storm

Is there truly "no agreement?" People seem to agree on a lot of the basics. For example, no one seems to think that being ruled over by instinct, circumstance, and desire, with no rational reflection on one's impulses is a good thing. There seems to be a fairly wide agreement on epistemic virtues as well. The good learner doesn't jump to conclusions and then refuse to relinquish them. They listen to other people and take their words in. They are patient. They desire to know the truth, rather than being wholly motivated by some other end, etc. But if the Good isn't obvious, then the good person needs to be a good learner. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A big, hierarchical society can afford to waste a portion of its human resources in order to keep the population under control; it can waive the benefits of each member reaching his or her potential in favour of a few gaining more power and wealth. — Vera Mont

giving them a far broader view of the world and of the scope of knowledge they might wish to pursue later. — Vera Mont

I recall a similar thread from about the same time (or maybe I am confusing it with another website), and the replies were, reasonably, "both". — Lionino

We are operating in different dimensions if you do not read the above as Supernatural. I don't think its worthy continuing about Qi if you do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it. — AmadeusD

I have asked you, if something is unknowable, how could you possibly learn it? It is impossible, was my point. I wondered how you dealt with it. You didn't :P — AmadeusD

This makes absolutely no sense. No one would ever, in their right mind, attempt to debate something incomprehensible. What I am trying to ask is why are you talking about hte possibility of knowing things which are, by your use of hte words, impossible to know? Seems like a pointless starting block to a pointless exercise in mystic thinking (nothing wrong with that, but it's not philosophy imo). — AmadeusD

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines. — AmadeusD

"We now know that eukaryotes can live happily without any remnant of the mitochondria." Mitochondria are the descendants of bacteria that settled down inside primordial eukaryotic cells, eventually becoming the power plants for their new hosts."
https://www.science.org/content/article/first-eukaryotes-found-without-normal-cellular-power-supply#:~:text=%22We%20now%20know%20that%20eukaryotes,plants%20for%20their%20new%20hosts.

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.
— Athena

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else. — Athena

Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?