One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). — JacobPhilosophy

I don’t think that fearing death necessarily follows logically from the conclusion that it is bad. Your attitude towards it could be more stoic, or indifferent, or any number of things.

As an agnostic, I can truthfully say: "I do not 'believe' that God exists." But that does not mean that "I believe that God does not exist. In fact, I do not. — Frank Apisa

Right, I agree, because that type of belief is impossible to hold. It is empty. Let me give you an example. The statements “I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing, the absence of the possession of money. Unless you would argue that I actually do have/possess something if I say the latter. Maybe you would, because that’s what it seems you’re doing when the statements are about beliefs. I don’t see or understand what makes the term “belief” special to exclude it from following the same logic that’s used in the example.

How do you know that?

So, even if such moral oughts are only desires/wishes, they aren't simply approving hurrahs and disapproving boos in the sense of being reflexive emotions sans thinking. — TheMadFool

Unless we have evolved to respond with positive emotions to what we now call “moral oughts.” In which case all thinking done on the subject is after the fact, simply post hoc justification of our emotional responses. IOW, moral oughts are simply our attempts at justifying our emotional responses in regards to behavior.

But making a statement like that means that you can change the position of the “positive” and “negative” aspects and retain the same meaning.

“I believe that this doesn’t exist” becomes “I don’t believe that this exists.” Which means, to me at least, that by negating the object (exist) you actually negate the verb (believe).

Sorry if I misrepresented your claim. I found your previous post to be confusing. I’ll try to explain.

I would not say "I believe there is no God" is a claim about the nonexistence of a concept. — Cabbage Farmer

This seems to disagree with this:

Well, God is certainly only a concept, but I think that “I believe there is no God” refers more towards the non/existence of the concept, rather than the concept itself. If I say “I believe the shirt is not red,” I’m making a statement about a property (the color) of the object (the shirt), not about the object itself. — Pinprick

However, this seems to agree with my quote above.

I might agree that this statement is also about something like "the color red", or "the property of being red" or "the predicate 'is red'"... and about the relation of some such thing to the thing called a shirt. Accordingly I might characterize the speaker's belief as a belief that there is a thing called "this shirt" and that the concept or predicate "being red" does not apply, or is not correctly applied, to that thing. — Cabbage Farmer

Hence my confusion. I can’t tell whether you agree or disagree with me. And I think an example, provided by you, of a belief that is about existence would help me understand better what you mean.

Insane according to the definition I provided?

But all this is a long way from 'insanity'. — Coben

If insanity is defined as above, then repeatedly using the same philosophical methods that have failed so many times before, and expecting them to succeed would fit that definition.

Further I think some of the big questions can be resolved for individual thinkers. — Coben

This doesn’t make sense. If the issue is truly resolved, then there would be no disputing it.

IOW they can find a position that makes their life work better for them in the context of their values. Beyond that once they choose certain axioms, philosophy can help them draw conclusions and develop positions that work for them. — Coben

I agree, but individually we could all be wrong. Simply being convinced that what you believe is true is different than it being true. This is why it’s silly to think that everyone could have their own beliefs about science that just works for them individually.

I can't convince everyone else what they should believe, but perhaps that is not possible or necessary. — Coben

If it’s not possible, it is because the issue has not been resolved. If it isn’t necessary, it means that true knowledge/wisdom isn’t the purpose of using philosophical methods.

We cannot resolve conflicts around big issues so doing philosophy is insane. — Coben

I would add “if you expect to find solutions to the big questions.”

To me it seems like some humbler goals and a sense of a spectrum of possible use is a healthier attitude about philosophy. — Coben

Any suggestions? Personally, I view philosophy as a hobby that people take seriously. IOW, we do philosophy because it’s enjoyable. The possibility of discovery is exciting, the sense of pride (and arrogance) that comes with believing you have the answers to some of life’s most enduring questions is pleasurable. It is the challenge of pushing the rock back up the hill again that is inviting. But I try not to deceive myself that it is anything more than just a hobby.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheism

Good luck finding an Atheist that would agree with Feuerbach’s quote.

I think atheists are typically denying a vague but typical image of God. — jjAmEs

They are denying any and all “images” of God.

I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time. — Frank Apisa

Lol, I agree. :rofl:

Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers. — Coben

I can agree that logic is more useful with intuition, but even their combination, along with whatever other philosophical methods you want to add, aren’t good enough to fully resolve much of anything. There are legitimate competing theories in every branch of philosophy with highly regarded and respected philosophers supporting each theory. And this is how it has always been, and I’m suggesting, always will be, precisely because philosophical methods are not capable of resolving philosophical questions like “what is the meaning of life,” “why is there something rather than nothing,” “what is the good life,” “what is beauty,” etc.

You would be fooled less, in the context of a philosophical discussion. Being fooled less - by your own poor arguments, by the poor arguments of others, by noticing fallacies, by noticing where semantic assumptions are taking place (as a few examples) - you would be less likely to be convinced of things that are false. That is closer to the truth or less far from the truth, at the very least. — Coben

I can agree with this, but the issue is that mistakes will still be made, regardless of how skilled you become. I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems. This leads me to think that logic, as well as whatever other philosophical methods, are the wrong tools for the job. Or I guess another way of putting it is that some philosophical problems are unsolvable, in that they can never be completely resolved, at least not by using philosophical methods.

And i would guess, though now we are into guessing, that philosophers today would have much more correct ideas about what is the case, than philosophers from long ago. — Coben

Maybe. I think today’s philosophers can rule out several theories in various fields as a result of science, but it seems to me like the big questions in philosophy are still unanswered.

You’re either misunderstanding me, or are wording things wrong. I agree that an Atheist doesn’t believe in God. I’m arguing that to say an Atheist believes God doesn’t exist is wrong.

No problem, take care of yourself. Hope it’s nothing serious.

Of course repeating the same actions in order to, over time, get different results could be a definition of 'to practice'. And practicing leads to all sorts of skills. — Coben

That makes sense, but I’m not sure that there is a good way to tell if your skills are improving or not. I guess making fewer mistakes could be a marker for improvement, but does making fewer mistakes get you closer to the truth? My way of thinking is that if you look at the 2,000 plus years humans have been using philosophical methods you realize that our methods inevitably lead to flawed results. It’s like we are continually trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. We desperately need a different peg, but none can be found, so we just continue shoving.

I'm inclined to agree with you but I haven't quite figured out where exactly the problem lies - is it with the subject (philosophical questions) or the method (logic) or perhaps both are culpable for the quagmire philosophy is in? — TheMadFool

I’d question that the problem lies in being human. We’ve evolved to think in certain ways about certain things. Perhaps there are ways of thinking that simply aren’t available to us? We only have five senses, but perhaps there could be other modalities through which we could view the world that would provide a different perspective, or insight, into the way we think? I don’t think there’s any way of knowing if these other modalities could exist, but perhaps they’re possible?

Logic seems to have proved its utility and efficacy in a multitude of arenas; math is worth mentioning since it's become a must if you want to make anything a science; by this I mean that logic has proven its value as a good enough method for truth-finding purposes. — TheMadFool

Yes, but there are other ways in which logic fails. Consider the irrationality inherent in quantum physics for example.

Could it be that much of philosophy today is about tackling vague notions of days past with the precision tool of logic with predictable results - confusion. I don't know if Wittgenstein is relevant here. — TheMadFool

I’d say a lot of it is that, but even the new ideas and theories that spring up from time to time seem to be flawed in some way.

Empirical scientists never "get it all right". Neither do mathematicians. Neither do painters or musicians, lawyers or politicians, ballplayers or mail carriers. Neither does anyone. — Cabbage Farmer

Right, not all the time, but what exactly has philosophy gotten right at all? Is there any subject that philosophy has solved completely? Math has solved arithmetic (how to add, subtract, etc.). Science, by its very nature, will always stand on the cutting edge of discovery and the unknown, but it at least has a very good understanding of the rudimentary levels of physics, biology, etc. Where has philosophy succeeded? How do you know if someone is philosophically fit or unfit?

I wonder, is it all beliefs that require an object, on your account? Might it be closer to the truth to say that true beliefs must be analyzable as having some "object", whereas some false beliefs turn out to be figments of confusion? — Cabbage Farmer

I think all beliefs require an object, whether true or untrue. To say you “believe” makes no sense without specifying what it is you believe, and if your specification turns out to be “nothing” or an empty set, then you actually lack belief, in my view at least.

Would you agree it seems we've homed in on the region of our disagreement? — Cabbage Farmer

Yes. I’m not exactly sure how to proceed since our difference seems to be fundamental to the topic at hand. But I would like to ask you what a belief about existence would be, since your claim that statements like “I believe God does/doesn’t exist” are actually about the concept of God, rather than existence?

Is it not appropriate to look towards the consensus of scholars/experts as a starting point to find the truth? What definition of knowledge should I have assumed if not the one the experts generally agree on?
— Pinprick

I'm considering this one closely. My first inclinations where to be snarky, but I don't want to do that. May take some time. — SonOfAGun

Hey, I’d still like to see what you think of this.

The pain is worth the gain. In other words masochism passes the hedonism test.I believe there are limits to the pain even a masochist will/can endure. However, it does appear that the difference between pain and pleasure gets blurred in masochism. Nevertheless, there is pleasure involved; it's just in a roundabout way. — TheMadFool

To me it only half way counts as hedonism. It is pleasure seeking, but it is also pain seeking. Or are you saying that everything pleasurable is hedonistic?

Also, regarding the question of the limits of pain a masochist is willing to go through, consider Bob Flanagan:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Flanagan

Maybe this is off topic or irrelevant, but how does masochism factor into all this?

Perhaps going to church is part of the criteria for having a “Christian mindset?” In other words, if you have a Christian mindset, then you will want to go to church; therefore you do.

Yeah...the people who are saying "I believe (in) god" are saying "I blindly guess there is a god"...but they are disguising the fact that they are saying that. — Frank Apisa

I don’t think this is accurate. You may be correct that affirming “God exists” is really a guess, but the person actually affirming that statement may not realize that. They may truly believe that the statement “God exists” is undeniably true. Therefore, they are not being deceptive, because they are not willfully trying to disguise anything, they are simply ignorant of the fact that their reasoning is flawed. Also, I’m of the opinion that people use the word belief to express their confidence when compared with “think” or “guess.” I know that I do that at least, but that’s not to say that their confidence isn’t misplaced, it certainly can be. Perhaps what you’re truly getting at is that people shouldn’t be so confident in conclusions drawn from faulty logic?

You're begging the question by assuming that the aliens are being inconsistent and we've discovered the inconsistency. I'm only asking you to consider the other possibility - there is no inconsistency at all and what we see as one is the result of our limited minds grappling with god's genius par excellence. — TheMadFool

Ok, sure that is a possibility, but I don’t see how there’s enough evidence to make it true or convincing. Conversely, there isn’t enough evidence to make the opposite true or convincing either. I’m questioning how people can claim that a religion is corrupt when there’s no clear or convincing evidence to suggest what an uncorrupted version of that religion is. I’m claiming agnosticism on the subject, not necessarily trying to make the case that God is or isn’t good or bad. My claim is that it is unknowable due to the inconsistencies in the evidence itself (holy books).

Yes, I am insisting that you don't reject the following:

1. God's onmibenevolence
2. The veracity of the holy books — TheMadFool

I’m asking on what grounds? That everyone else does? Surely you’re aware that’s a fallacy. It appears that you are trying very hard to make 1 and 2 unquestionable or off limits.

If you choose not to accept the two assumptions above my argument is garbage. — TheMadFool

And if I choose to accept them you’re conclusion logically follows.

Imagine if we come into contact with super-intelligent aliens who've mastered intergalactic space travel. If in a conversation with them, you notice what appears to be an "inconsistency" would you doubt them or yourself? — TheMadFool

Wouldn’t them being “super-intelligent” depend on their ability to be consistent? Or better yet, their ability to communicate effectively without inconsistencies being perceived by the listener? Regardless, I would ask them to clarify what they meant.

bear in mind that god is both all-good and of infinite intellect and, ergo, you should be leaning towards an answer that factors in the intelligence-gap between us, humans and god viz. that the fault lies in us and that we've misunderstood god's words as it appears in the holy books. — TheMadFool

How would I know that God is all good and all knowing? You seem to be insisting that I assume this, but the only evidence that suggests this (holy books) is precisely what is being questioned. Besides, wouldn’t the assumption of an intelligence gap make assuming about God’s character unreasonable? If he is so much further advanced than I am, how could I possibly guess at his intentions?

Here's a short argument:

1. God is all good (goodness which we're familiar with)

2. The holy books are god's words

3. if the holy books are god's words then the holy books don't have mistakes

4. The holy books don't have mistakes (2, 3 modus tollens)

5. If god commands killing then, either the holy books have mistakes or god is not all good

6. The holy books don't have mistakes and god is all good (1, 4 conjunction)

7. god doesn't command killing (5, 6 modus tollens)

8. Either god commands killing or we've misunderstood the holy books (we've misread some lines as orders to kill)

9. We've misunderstood the holy books (7, 8 disjunctive syllogism) — TheMadFool

1 is unknowable, because the evidence for it (the holy books) is suspect. The goodness we’re all familiar with doesn’t include endorsing murder, etc. Also, if you’re going to come to the conclusion that we’ve misinterpreted the holy books regarding the endorsement of murder, you could just as easily say that we’ve misinterpreted them regarding the goodness of God.

9 isn’t true. The holy books have been interpreted in multiple ways, therefore someone got it right. The question is who.

You could just as easily make the opposite argument using the same evidence.

1 becomes “God is all bad”
5 becomes “If God commands love thy neighbor then...
6 becomes “The holy books don’t have mistakes and God is all bad.”
7 becomes “God doesn’t command love thy neighbor.“
8 becomes “Either God commands love thy neighbor...

Maybe, but it would depend on Gods definition of “good.” Who’s to say God doesn’t consider what we call atrocities good (except for the contradictory founders of these religions)?

Fair enough, I suppose. Does this mean you accept your belief on faith?

But as others have pointed out, the corruption of religious institutions is a fact of history; I think as soon as something becomes an institution, then it implements a power-structure, and wherever there's power, there's the possibility of corruption. — Wayfarer

I essentially agree with this. However, I’m questioning how you, or anyone else, can know that these power grabs that you’re describing aren’t the intended consequences of the founder of the religion? I assume that these theocrats would provide some scripture to justify their actions. Just as I assume that that there would be scripture against their actions. The inherent contradictions in these texts is a big part of the issue.

There is no detached, objective or scientific way to determine it. — Wayfarer

Then you accept that your claim that religions have been corrupted is only an opinion? If not, on what do you base your belief upon?

from the viewpoint of secular culture, it's impossible to make value judgements about the overall veracity of different religions - say, scientology, Santeria, and Catholicism. — Wayfarer

Isn’t calling a religion corrupt a value judgment?

You asked what i mean by this, some say Joshua shouldn't have killed the children (assuming he did and i assume he did) of the cities he conquered (book of joshua old testament), had he not killed them the parents would have a strange conversation with their adopted children when they became teenagers. Also child sacrifice was common among amorites in canaan as well as in ancient iraq. Hammurabi was actually an amorite just in case you didn't know. — christian2017

I see. I’m not interested in the justification, or lack there of, of Joshua’s actions.

If you would like me to go on and on about the culture of canaan i can. Territories in history have certainly been conquered over much lesser crimes. — christian2017

That’s not necessary.

If you disagree with these things in that you don't find them to be corruption, either my concept of reality is severely flawed or yours is and there is no point in us trying to convince each otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point we get into a discussion about post-modernism. — christian2017

I’m not trying to move into post-modernist territory. I agree that the things you mentioned are bad, but bad doesn’t equal corrupt, at least not in my view. I see corruption to mean something like changing the meaning of what a particular holy book/passage/ doctrine says so that it suits your needs. Pretending to be doing “God’s will,” but actually pursuing your own selfish needs. The problem is we can’t simply ask the authors what they meant, so it is left for the rest of us to interpret. Also, there is the problem of contradictory passages in religions texts. One passage says “love thy neighbor,” while others promote violence, such as the one @Bitter Crank provided above. Some followers practice the former, while some practice the latter. So which group is corrupt, and which is not? Each group will just point the finger at the other group, and, as @Wayfarer mentioned, there is no objective way to settle the dispute. Do you have a solution?

Also, I promise my comments are sincere. If my questions seem stupid it is due to my lack of understanding. I simply ask because I want to learn.

In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt. — christian2017

If you try, I could be persuaded. Of course, I’m not implying that the founders of any religion were corrupt, I don’t think that’s even possible, unless we have different ideas of what corrupt means.

However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now. — christian2017

With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?

In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".

Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC? — christian2017

I literally have no clue what you’re trying to get at here...

Thanks for this. :up:

@Wayfarer @christian2017 @TheMadFool Would any of you care to explain what a corrupt religion is, and how you determine it to be so? What is your method for distinguishing what is exactly meant in any religions holy book? I assume that you all mean that a religion is corrupted when people use it to justify doing despicable things to those that they oppose. However, often when people do that sort of justifying, they present specific passages from their holy book. So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone?

Chistianity and Islam is drastically different. — christian2017

Sure, but I don’t see the relevance here. You mentioned the corruption of religion, but not of a specific religion.

There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical". — christian2017

They aren’t deemed heretical by who? Accepted by who? Are there other denominations that claim to be Christian, but are not accepted? If so, on what grounds?

Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement. — christian2017

Sure, but I meant total agreement.

Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord. — christian2017

There are many statements in all of the religions texts, but people interpret them differently. Usually some mixture of literal and metaphorical/allegorical. I know Jihadism is in the Koran, but not all Muslims practice it. My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. Perhaps Jihadism should be taken literally, or perhaps not. It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with.

That’s not at all what I am saying or implying. The overwhelming majority of people in general are at least decent. I just don’t understand what @christian2017meant by religious corruption. As far as I know, there is absolutely no agreement in any religion as to what is the correct doctrine, and which doctrine is corrupt. That’s precisely why there are so many different sects and denominations within each religion. Therefore, who is to say that Jihadism is a corrupted form of Islam, for example? Those Muslims that are not Jihadists may think so, but the reverse is also true. I guess the more direct questions I was asking were when was religion corrupted, and by who? And what is your reasoning to back up whatever your claim is?

The corruption of religion implies that there is a more, for lack of a better term, pure form of it that exists, or at least existed. However, every denomination and sect of each individual religion claims to be this “pure” form. If I were to be cynical, I would say that religion has been corrupt since it’s inception, as it was used primarily as a tool to establish authority and “order,” but under the guise of “truth” or “morality.”

Right - very difficult situation, I agree. But I think the principle would imply that it is ok for the Governor to offer a personal exhortation to prayer - it's when he starts to use the authority and instruments of office that the line is becoming blurred. It's not ideal in any case, but a matter of practical necessity in a pluralistic culture.

On the other hand, the US was very much founded on Christian principles and I myself am not a secular zealot, like, I don't agree with moves to abolish all symbols of religious belief in public life, like has been done in Montreal for example. I would rather adopt a live and let live attitude. — Wayfarer

Well said. And I think your sentiments are spot on as well.

Just some thoughts, but do you think that you need to consider the fact that music is listened to more often in groups? Concerts, places of worship, shopping malls, etc.? In order to even listen to music by yourself, you have to first be by yourself, which for most people means intentionally removing yourself from a group, whether it’s family members, friends, or the public in general. We are seldom alone.

That being said, I am the type of person that only sings alone, mainly because I’m insecure about my voice, but I would wager that there are others like me as well.

Didn’t realize that. Completely agree with you though.

Each house of the Congress starts each session with prayers to "Almighty God" — Frank Apisa

Is this true? If so, that is certainly a violation of the separation of church and state.

Yes.