But matters of fact are not all knowable, — Noah Te Stroete

An unknowable assumption.

We have yet to reach a limit. Everything is data, and we cannot store it all, as that would take more matter and energy than the universe can supply. What may be unknowable is who or what the god of the gaps of both religion and science are.

for example, whether or not there is a God and what Her nature would be. — Noah Te Stroete

She would be knowable if she would do a miracle or such.

The fact that she does not speaks to her lack of reality. Just like all the other gods. Her nature would follow ours, of course.

I suspect the majority do, and only a minority withhold judgment. — Noah Te Stroete

I would not ague against subjective view but I would not say a minority. Few would be the word I would use. More like the lunatic fringe.

usually — Noah Te Stroete

Eh. No.

Regards
DL

have you considered that any concept, from 'rocks' to 'gods' stands or falls on its functional utility to humans who coin it,? — fresco

A false equivalency buddy.

When I look at a rock sliding down the hill at me, I know it is real and will move.

If I should look and see a god, he had better show his intention like the rock did to have me move.

If said god is Yahweh, I would move to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

for the last couple of years without much 'success'. — fresco

I think I have been quite successful and guide many away fro idol worship of a genocidal and infanticidal god.

So there's your answer — fresco

I agree that we created god to serve us.

I could have live without your other speculative nonsense.

If you do not like my style. too bad and go away.

Regards
DL

with the younger generation getting smarter, I suppose. — PoeticUniverse

Let us pray.

Yours was a good reply. Thanks.

Regards
DL

To portray 'God' as already being truth and fact is misleading. — PoeticUniverse

From the O.P.

At the end of the day, there is no physical or real supernatural God for us to follow.

Now I see why you replied as you did. Poor reading comprehension.

Further, I cannot expect my target audience, Christians, to engage on a service issues without using their ideology as a take off point.

Regards
DL

Do you believe that being religious and being a literalist are equivalent? — Noah Te Stroete

No. They are not defined the same way.

Are people who see religious myths as valuable and having wisdom religious people? — Noah Te Stroete

No. There is wisdom in Mother Goose.

Do most people who value reason hold beliefs about matters of fact that cannot rise to the level of knowledge? — Noah Te Stroete

Facts are true knowledge by definition.

What is faith? — Noah Te Stroete

The bible defines it as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What is reason? — Noah Te Stroete

Check your favorite dictionary as I am not offering a new definition.

Regards
DL

Not applicable. 'God' hasn't been established. Same for all else layered upon — PoeticUniverse

That is why I focus on a logical question and not what has no end game.

You took the lazy way out of thinking so why are you even here?

Regards
DL.

I agreed then put a caveat.

Regards
DL

Yeah yeah, I'm just one more too-stupid-for-words brain dead slouch. But really, taking on the title of a god is kind of hubristic. — Bitter Crank

It is following the tradition that Jesus and all gurus and mystics taught.

Regards
DL

Hubris Alert clang clang clang clang clang — Bitter Crank

No reading comprehension. Oh well.

Regards
DL

We are not gods. — Bitter Crank

That would depend on how you define god.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

distracted, gullible dummy population — DingoJones

This says it all.

Note how the U.S. is dropping in the world stats on intelligence, even as they continue to drop the standards of excellence that American children already are to dumbed down to reach.

Regards
DL

I expect now a knock on my door now, and before I know it, I'll be given a lethal injection between two toes,and the coroner's report will say "Cardiac arrest". — god must be atheist

Slave owners just have no ----- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCVR_ajL_Eo

Regards
DL

They, like you said, DL, also count on our zero attention span, gullability, and easily excitable public fear that can be whipped into a frenzie of panic at any time they wish to. — god must be atheist

When you can buy the best in con men or are a con man, things can be made to be easy when lies come from bought and paid for experts.

Remember the tobacco industries frauds. Watch the documentary --- What the Health--- and see fraud taken to the point, again, to where the government is knowingly killing it's people.

Proof of that is in the stats that show Americans are dying younger while in the rest of the world, they are dying older.

Regards
DL

Your anarchist or libertarian focus, whatever it is, — Bitter Crank

My focus here is the immorality of the governments, the oligarch's lackeys, as you seem to know, so I reject your labels.

Then there is union organizing on a massive scale; there is civil disobedience; there are mass demonstrations, boycotts, work stoppages -- let your imagination go! — Bitter Crank

All good ideas that have been tried to some extent before.

The rich are quite good at ridding out our little temper tantrums and the public has an attention span of almost 0 and they change focus at the next oligarch created headline.

It will take masses of people, as you know, but the trick is to trigger their moral indignation and as you can see by the religions they follow, the rank and file do not have a moral sense to be indignant about.

The immoral fools are idol worshiping vile gods and that makes it easy for them to not recognize their vile oligarch owned political system.

Regards
DL

Then two or more different pushes may touch the parliamentary representatives, and therefore it is very conceivable that I still don't have the power of getting my wish enacted by parliament. — god must be atheist

Agreed, depending on what the oligarchs want.
Even if you had a politician in your back pocket, he would have to break the trend shown in this link.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think?c=upw1&u=94acbbeb6bbd6d664157009a896e71b014efbf27

Regards
DL

Then when I have decided that you say is in my power, then my decision will be enacted in Parliament / Congress? If not, what use is my decision? — god must be atheist

All legislation begins with a person pushing the idea. That is all I or you can do.

Someone we convince might like what we think, and if the person has political power, he might grab the idea and run with it.

That is all I can hope for in outing ideas in these places.

Apologies on the spelling/typing error. If the system misses it, they sometimes get past me.

Regards
DL

Meaning? — god must be atheist

I think I was clear.

It is to you to decide if it is moral or not for a rich country to use the tax system to maintain poverty levels or not.

Regards
DL

Pardon?

Regards
DL

You say "that" graph. Which graph? — god must be atheist

From the O.P.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

I have never once envisioned what shape a moral demographic shape looks like. Can you insert a picture which shows that shape? — god must be atheist

Options in the presentation and graph show some options to help you decide what the moral graph might look like. Make up your mind and note how little wealth gas to move to make it moral to yourself.

Regards
DL

Yes, it's relative, in the sense that it isn't absolute, or 'mind-independent', — Pattern-chaser

Of course it is mind dependent as our minds tell us how to react depending on if we are perceiving a good or an evil.

You will decide if this reply is good or evil. Right?

That is mind dependant, unless you are a brain dead sheeple..

Regards
DL

Who is "us"? Is the entire population poor? — god must be atheist

If you consider that graph to show an immoral situation, then yes, we are all indeed poorer both morally and financially.

Do you see the graph as showing a moral demographic shape?

I do not.

Regards
DL

If you set the indicators of "poverty" low enough, then you can eradicate poverty on the entire globe in one fell swoop overnight. — god must be atheist

Yes, especially if you add in the huge and immoral profit taking on the right of the graph.

Regards
DL

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that? — DingoJones

There are many reasons and they are irrelevant to what we collectively do about it.

The ease of eliminating it is what I am focused on.

Note how little of our wealth has to go from the extreme right of the graph to the left.

Regards
DL

in simple terms. I don't know how I do it. — Pattern-chaser

Sure you do.

All you need ask yourself is if you would like it for yourself.
As you seem to know.
You are a bit conflicted as you say you can then say you can't.
Which is it?
Do you trust your moral sense or not?

Regards
DL

Our very own Esoteric Ecumenist Humanist. — Bitter Crank

Lucky place.

Regards
DL

Maat isn't an analogy, she's the heart of my religion. — WerMaat

You expressed her well.

She beats Christian ideology by a mile by demanding that we think for ourselves.

Regards
DL

When the child grows up, he returns to take his rightful place as divine king... sound familiar?) — WerMaat

Indeed, as do many of the Eastern myths that were plagiarized for the bible.

Regards
DL

Dividing people into groups and ghettoes has been tried and shown to fail.

Diversity is strength, to a certain level, is quite true, but losing any original strain is losing a lot of potential useful information, and that could effect the benefit or lose to the whole of our species.

Regards
DL

That definition, of course, is of no use to you if I don't explain what I mean by "Maat", but I guess that this would throw the thread wildly off topic... — WerMaat

Then use more generic analogies buddy.

Regards
DL

God cannot be good or evil to/for everyone, because what's good for me might be evil for you. — Pattern-chaser

You are statistically and factually incorrect.
I doubt that we would disagree on the definition you and I use.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

I will bet that you moral sense, like mine, begins with some kind or reciprocity rule. There is the Golden Rule versions and the more modern Harm/Care, but you will know what I mean.

Regards
DL

I would advise caution, similar to what Enki wrote. — WerMaat

Cooperation is indeed preferable to conflict but unity is not the goal of competition.

We evolve to seek the fittest in all ways and should not care to unite with immoral or otherwise unseemly traits.

There is duality in all concepts. Pur goals determine which direction we will take.

Regards
DL

I believe that faith can be a strong guide for an individual person, but organized religion needs to carefully guard itself lest it be corrupted and used as a tool for manipulation and political power. — WerMaat

LOL.

Buddy. That happened a long time ago. Think Constantine.

Regards
DL

Is this speculation, or do you have any historical clues pointing to this interpretation? — WerMaat

More inference than speculation, but we cannot say that a miracle working Jesus ever existed in the first place and so all I am doing is trying to analyse a myth for whatever little truths might be in it.

Jesus either learned his esoteric ecumenist was from Judaism or Summer and Egypt or from his own Jewish esoteric denomination which, as I understand it, was in Egypt.

The third eye being called the single eye as Jesus called it, I think, is Egyptian. I could be wrong on that.

Here is a Gnostic Christian speaking of the Jesus myth. This does not negate the usefulness of the few places the Gnostic Jesus speaks to us in the scriptures that the church never quotes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

Secular law is teaching us better morals and ethics than religions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Are you shilling again for the ruling elite? How much are they paying you this time? — alcontali

I am shilling for the good sense and morals of secular law makers. Even though much needs improving, what they have beats the hell out of theistic laws. That is why you follow those.

Regards
DL

Anyway, thanks a lot for this. — BrianW

My pleasure buddy.

Yahweh became a prick in Christian hands but the older androgynous Yahweh was not bad at all nor believed in in a literal way by the Jews. It took the stupid literal; reading of myths by Christians to give life to their genocidal and infanticidal god.

Regards
DL

For me, Christianity was the starting point, it's what I was raised with. But the more I questioned and explored it the more dissatisfied I became with the biblical texts and concepts. — WerMaat

Any open mind that reads the bible should end up wondering why Christians can idol worship a god that, by any moral standard, is a fail.

If that is not enough, just listening to literalists apologists who have been dumbed down by the literal reading of their myths should do the job.

I see the older religionists as esoteric ecumenists who preferred to see and define god by his best rules and laws as being the way to go. After all, one is supposed to live his religion and that can only be done by showing those good laws, rules and moral tenets.

If Christians were that way, and had a decent ideology, inquisitions and jihads would not have been required.

This may be a part of why Christians try to deflect to the existence of god instead of his attributes.

I should not complain too much as that is what is helping kill Christianity and Islam.

Regards
DL

If this is more or less what you mean by literalism rearing its head, then we're in agreement. — WerMaat

Absolutely correct.

Nice to chat with one who know his religious history. It sure beats chatting with a literalist air head.

As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the thinking and practices of "mosaische Unterscheidung", if he craved a return to the older and better way of thinking of god.

OK, you lost me here. Do you see me as a theist and are you waiting for me to hit the corner?
And where exactly does the feeding of the poor come in at this point?
I'm confused... — WerMaat

Apologies for my little rant against the way theists debate.
It was a complaint against them and not against you.
My respect grows for your thinking.

Regards
DL

What you put fits here a bit better but I will answer here.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6138/what-good-is-a-good-god-when-people-want-an-evil-god

I believe that ethics are a secondary development in religion. It only happens when we proceed from explaining nature in religious metaphor to also conceptualizing human society and morals in religious terms.
This is when the monotheists with their all-powerful and all-good God(tm) run into the theodicy issue.
In my religion, the moral concept of Maat is central, so yes, religion and moral authority are tied together. But since my Gods and Goddesses are neither all powerful nor perfectly good the question of their existence is quite independent from their notion of ethics. — WerMaat

I cannot agree with your first as the old religions pushed looking after the poor as their first priority and not proving that their god was the most powerful. Not directly in any case. The battle of the gods in the BCE s was more of magic and alchemy to show power. That only changed after people became literalists and theirs was the power of the sword that showed the power of their gods.

Before literalism, reared it's ugly and dumbing down head, seeking god was actually a joy to see and participate in.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

In those days the Golden Rule ruled and that is a moral tenet.

The Egyptian and Sumerian myths that the Jews copied from to create their religion, IMO, showed more wisdom than the religions that followed. Literalism though took all the good out of Christianity and Islam. Midrash gave the Jewish religion intelligence and a decent moral base but without midrash in Christianity, they end with idol worshiping a genocidal son murderer that they can somehow see as good.

And nature does not conform to human notions of good and evil, an earthquake will kill the righteous as well as the wicked. Why should the gods be different? — WerMaat

Only sentient beings can discern good and evil so what nature does is amoral.
Even secular law recognizes that by using men's rea, Latin for an evil mind or evil intent, as one of the main ingredients required before a person can be found guilty of a crime. Insanity pleas are based on mens rea and is why the insane are treated differently than the usual criminal.

Just the opposite: very likely, I argue.The main attribute defining a god is power, not ethics. — WerMaat

I wonder. I get sick of backing a theist into a corner just to have him pull his G D god is love B.S.
I mention the feeding of the poor already. To show you wrong now let me show why you might be right.

Let me add that being the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet does say that the security of strength is really important to us, but we default to cooperation and doing good/moral and only resort to competition when cooperation is not possible.

Regards
DL

1. Do you think that religion is a majority vote? — WerMaat

Basically, all religions are just tribes and in that sense, the majority votes and which god is the tribal god. I.E. In Judaism they idol worshiped, was it Baal, until the majority voted Yahweh in.

2. Or is it a matter of age? The most ancient texts and traditions must be the most true? — WerMaat

The respect for the people of the book indicates it was text based, yes, but the ancient Jews were esoteric ecumenists like Jesus before Christianity turned stupid and began to read myths literally and become dumbed down. This link speak of those better, pre-literalist days.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

3. It could also be a matter of quality. Is a deity more "real" if He or She demands a higher ethical standard from the followers, or offers a more coherent explanation of the world? But then, who would be qualified to judge the quality or a religion? — WerMaat

You and I are to judge, even if others do not. There is not a lot of wisdom in scriptures but that idea is there.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I do not think people want a moral guide or god. They want a powerful one as their security, not their moral fibre is why they are in a tribe/religion to begin with.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6138/what-good-is-a-good-god-when-people-want-an-evil-god

Regards
DL

Those traits will not necessarily lead to individuals that are fittest. — Coben

I disagree and see nature always creating an organism for it's best possible end.
Remember that our selfish gene does not know if there are more fit organisms out there and is ready to compete if it has to. We default to cooperation as that is the best survival/fitness technique but will compete for resources and mating opportunities if we have to.

When born, it is counter intuitive to think nature would intentionally create a weakness in us to prevent us from reaching our full potential. It would be a waste of energy and resources and I do not think nature would waste it. Life is veracious and wants to be in as many environments as it can grow in.

I also don't see nature pushing people to be the best thinkers. — Coben

Survival is based on the decisions we all make. That takes intelligence which depends on the quality of our thinking. Some think better or faster than others. To think fittest, in a thinking animal, would not include thinking fitness is counter intuitive. This is bolstered by your desire and mine to educate our children to as high a level as we can.

Nature is working with each individual to insure they are the fittest homo sapien? I don't see this. Many seem content with less than being fittest, some content with not being fit at all. — Coben

We all eventually accept our fate and for a less fit organism to continue to compete would only cause it harm and that is why sheeple become sheeple. In our hierarchical tribal systems, there is only room for the few at the top and the many just line up behind them for security, which is our selfish gene's reason for being, along with reproduction.

The nature you see us as pushing us to be the fittest. what is this nature? What are you referring to? — Coben

Our nature is under discussion but the traits ours has are not unique to us. They are universal. It is only because of our intelligence that we can understand the workings of it as much as we do. Then again, there is nothing that says that other animals are not aware of how their instincts work. They just can't tell us how intelligent they are. They show us that though all the time.

Regards
DL