By definition a virgin (applied to someone who intends to get married) is someone who has saved sex for marriage — Agustino

Well, there are consecrated and celibate virgins who remain in such a state their whole lives (as I more or less plan to do). Virginity in a historical religious context is usually perpetual and not a period during which one is "saving sex." You probably already knew this, but I thought I'd point it out.

Salvation is through the belief Jesus died for your sins not through works or grace in this life. — Benkei

This sounds like Lutheran Pietism and so is only one soteriological conception among many in Christian history.

That is when I decided to let go of Stoicism and Buddhism. — Emptyheady

What are you now? And you really saying that you ceased all inquiries into Buddhism on account of a Zizek video?

Sometimes I admit defeat in my positions and sometimes victory, but regardless, I often change my positions, if only slightly, due to conversing with other people on forums. In fact, it's one of the main reasons to post on a forum like this, imo. One can play around with different ideas and arguments in a somewhat casual fashion.

Or thrive in certain ways, depending (given the OP's links).

Perhaps deism, pantheism, panentheism, and Logos could be seen as forms of ietsism? — anonymous66

Maybe! However, I would tend to think these -isms are more defined than ietsism, which picks out that supremely (and seemingly deliberately) vague, unhelpful, and frustrating reply that one's typical fellow apes give in response to whether they believe in God: "I think there must be something out there," "I believe in a higher power," or "I think there's something bigger than myself." These phrases are fit to make any philosopher fly into a rage, but they represent, in my view, the extent to which people have pondered anything metaphysical and make up the predominant belief of most people today, at least in the industrialized world.

I don't think any conservatives are jumping on the Musk-Mars interstellar highway. — Question

No, because they're not utopians.

I recall reading in one of those Pew research reports that a significant proportion of self-described atheists still believe that there is a higher intelligence. (Just don't call it 'God'!) — Wayfarer

Indeed, I find that the main belief of most people is ietsism.

Sarcasm?

Sounds contradictory. Do explain.

I eschew agnosticism, theism, and atheism, so I can't really answer your question. But to try, the greatest philosophers opposite to my view (which is ignosticism) would be those who think they know what it is they're talking about when they use the word "God."

Yes. And in any event, it's very naive to think government will be the solution to its negative effects.

It was just a lighthearted comment. — Terrapin Station

Alright, but it wasn't immediately apparent to me.

(N) Just another word for happiness!

(Y)

Ummm . . . skip — Terrapin Station

What does this mean? I don't get it. You could have skipped responding to my post if you didn't like it for whatever reason.

"Happy" is an irritating word, so you can keep it.

Nah, I think it fit and I'm not changing it. I've clarified it and that's that. Nor am I making any arguments.

Maybe you have a source where Einstein himself said that he meditates, prays, practices celibacy, and tries to live like Jesus did. — m-theory

I never said nor meant to imply that he did these things. I was talking about myself, which I have now said twice.

I am pretty sure that this was not something he had said himself, even if it is something that was said of him. — m-theory

I am, too. Now don't make me repeat myself again, ffs, man.

But he's not really refuting the phrase I used. Read your quote again. Obviously, what he means by "religious" is not what I mean by it. That's why I clarified what I mean by it in the very next sentence in my post.

The World as Will and Presentation (Schopenhauer)

As Einstein said of himself, at the moment, I am a deeply religious non-believer. That is, I meditate, pray, practice celibacy, and try to emulate Jesus, the Buddha, and other religious figures, but I do not formally belong to any church or religion and cannot bring myself to believe in certain dogmas sensu proprio. I think, given my temperament and intellectual trajectory, I will either remain a religious, non-believing hermit, as I am now, or will formally convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Buddhism.

Xunzi the real stud, amirite?

I can't pick just one. I'd say these, though: Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. If not the most overrated, then certainly these are the most irritating, to me at least.

There is a general tendency in doctors to over-medicalize, and consequently to overprescribe medications. — John

Yeah, so? That doesn't refute my distinction.

what about Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's works? — Agustino

They're matched by his biblical commentaries.

Plato is an idealist with regards to the forms, Aristotle isn't — Agustino

I'm not so sure. I understand that for Aristotle the forms are inextricably bound with matter in an object, but we can ask: are the forms immaterial? If so, then that surely casts doubt on his alleged realism. Secondly, he thought we could abstract from particular forms and particular bits of matter to more basic (and real?) things: the prime mover, which is certainly not a material being, and prime matter, which, ironically, isn't exactly material.

Neither is the Prime Mover separate from the world, but rather, the Prime Mover is always present, and always acting, at all times, and at all places within the world and sustaining it. — Agustino

Yes, but this simply makes him an immanentist, not necessarily a realist. I define realism (at least one kind of it) as asserting the mind independent reality of the objects of sense. Does Aristotle do this? No, since the prime mover, as pure intellect, is always brooding over the particulars.

Have you read De Veritate for example? — Agustino

I've not and have debated whether to add it to my list. Still, considering his total output, the vast majority of it is theological. I would actually place Augustine ahead of Aquinas as a philosopher of religion.

Aristotelian realism — Agustino

I think it's somewhat of a mistake to apply the the terms "realism" and "idealism" to ancient figures, especially when these terms are highly contested in modern philosophy. In the present case, Aristotle's philosophy can be thought of as a variant of Platonism, which distinguishes between reality and appearance, which, in turn, is one way to couch idealism. I'm not actually certain how to classify Aristotle, since he doesn't use the same terminology that realism and idealism are predicated on. The act/potency distinction is unique.

The first Critique, the essay on religion within the limits of reason, and various other places throughout his oeuvre. I would include whatever essay I got those quotes on Abraham and Isaac from, too, but I forget what that is.

there is nothing contradictory in sex occurring during love — Agustino

"During love" doesn't make any sense. If one is having sex, there isn't anything one is doing in addition to that. And one does it because it brings one pleasure. Again, however, there's nothing moral or salvific about obtaining pleasure.

Because Kant has some of the most penetrating philosophical insights into the nature of religion.

Once he's done with the praeambula fidei, which doesn't amount to much of his writing, Aquinas is pretty straightforwardly a theologian and not a philosopher.

Given this list, I said Kant.

I should think the onus is on you to defend the claim. I will simply say that sex is an amoral act, whereas an act of love is intrinsically moral.

One could argue that, certainly, but I would disagree.

I only got very much more interested in having sex once I had a girlfriend, but that was because I loved her — Agustino

Love =//= sex.

So if all one cared about was sexual pleasure, why not become like the Japanese who don't have sex anymore? — Agustino

That report is false.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/yes-japanese-people-still-have-sex/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/23/are_japanese_people_really_having_less_sex_than_anyone_else.html

I highly doubt that if I go to a doctor telling them that I am depressed, they would just send me out the door, and not diagnose me with anything. They would diagnose me with something for sure — Agustino

I don't know. You'd have to provide some statistics to back this claim up. It seems perfectly possible and reasonable to me that a doctor, upon hearing about your alleged depression, would not diagnose you with anything and indeed proceed to send you out the door. They have to watch out for people who fake symptoms in order to get prescription drugs, which they plan to abuse.

But a doctor could certainly diagnose the latter too, wouldn't he? — Agustino

No. You could go to the doctor claiming to feel depressed and he or she might not diagnose you. Normal depression is not medically diagnosable, because there's nothing medically wrong with it.

If people didn't think of depression as such a nasty condition, well who knows, it probably wouldn't even be considered a disorder anymore. — Question

The clinical form of it is nasty, though, such that the people having it don't want it. It's not fun and it's not healthy. You should look up more information about it. We're not talking about feeling sad because your dog died or you watched a melancholic movie or because you read some existentialist philosopher talking about how absurd life is.

Vague but not non-existent. Medical professionals have good reasons for classifying it as such. Unless you're well read in the psychiatric literature on the topic and prepared to dispute it, then I will defer to it, not you.

The former is diagnosed by a doctor, the latter is not.

What exactly about clinical depression is wrong about it? Why place a value judgment on such a condition? — Question

I mean "wrong" with respect to one's health, not in a moral sense. Clinical depression is classified as a mental disorder, which again, is not a moral judgment, but simply a description of an abnormal neurological state. Non-clinical depression is perfectly normal and healthy.

You need to distinguish clinical depression from non-clinical depression. If you're talking about the latter, then I actually agree with you. If you're talking about the former, then there is something wrong with it, medically speaking.

Inequity refers to a lack of justice, so it's by definition wrong.

Inequality, on the other hand, is not necessarily wrong. Be careful not to confuse the two.

They could justify much more easily by "God said it" to the uneducated majority, than by explanation - the uneducated majority couldn't understand explanation, but they could understand "God said it". — Agustino

Aquinas says basically this:

It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation [Emphasis mine].

raises the question as to why there are so few atheist social conservatives today? — Agustino

Group think and peer pressure.