Religion reveals truths which make substantive contributions to the lives of the faithful.
Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.

Historically few philosophers died for their beliefs.

Existence of the objective morals & problem of moral relativism

Human normative behavior is objectively present wherever man is. Of course, contexts can vary significantly from one society to the next, in this relative sense that what is normative in one society, may not be so in the next. Morality is a subset of normative behaviour.

I think individuals rely on the normative moral rules of the society where they live, the practices instilled by family, school, peers and so on. Our sense of duty to others and ourself arises from these norms. I think we are morally constructed, and our behaviour in varying degrees mirror normative practices.

I don't think most people have to think very hard to judge what's right or wrong in the vast majority of moral choices. It is only in a true moral dilemma, that we are challenged. How we respond is based on the possibilities inherent in the situation. Thinking of Sartre's example:

A eighteen year old boy in France in WWII wants to go and join the resistance to fight the Germans and to help regain his country, which is in a desperate occupied state at this point. He lives out in the country in a secluded area, It is only him and his mother who is sick, dying perhaps. He knows that if he goes and leaves her there is a very good chance she will die. Does he stay and care for his mother or go and help reclaim his country?

I don't think such dilemmas are easily resolved, but I do think such difficult decisions demonstrate our moral character.

I don't disagree with what you have said, there is a lot more to life than logic/reason (this is easy to say, hard to convince), I suspect if his trace, it may be in the narratives of others who say they have experienced god. Some of these even outline plans, a description of stages the soul must pass through to become one with god. (Marguerite Porete' "The Mirror")

Of course these people were in love X-)

Hi, I am an agnostic, and I don't think the god has being. What does it mean to talk about that which is not. It may be said, but what is said means logically, rationally, nothing.



:

What makes something rational in your view?

A thing that can be discussed, described, that judgements can be made about the thing based on what's known.

We seem to be talking a bit past each other here. I am suggesting that "Rational Theist" is a contradiction in terms because I don't think that the Theistic belief can be reasoned. You seem to be arguing that Theism is rational because it employs rational arguments. I don't think being a "Rational Theist" is a rational position, it seems to deny itself, in spite of utilizing rational arguments.

No, I think it is very relevant. If the concept can't be rationally circumscribed, you can use all the rational arguments at your disposal...to my way of thinking that does not change that the conclusion that this process's attempt to encompass a concept that is beyond reason by reason is not a contradiction.

From article in HuffingtonPost today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker said his newspaper would not refer to false statements from the Trump administration as “lies,” because doing so would ascribe a “moral intent” to the statements.

He thinks calling them lies interjects a judgement that is not there in his statements.

He said reporters should state the facts, but leave classifying them to readers, citing the example of Trump’s claim that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were celebrating on 9/11 (which is false).

Problem: people believe what they read, especially in places like the WSJ.

His concepts are rational, their result don't prove god.

How can god be demonstrated in any reasoned argument?

My contention is the term 'rational theist' seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, since belief in god, can't be circumscribed by reason.

Sure I like his arguments, and the rational discussion that follows since in many ways I think the concept of god outlines the boundaries of human knowledge. However, if you tell me something, and I doubt you then you ought to be able to prove it, if you can't then does not seem to me that you can maintain it as a rational position, it's a non-rational/magical belief, which is what I think the concept of god entails.

I like Lucretius’ Symmetry Argument against the Fear of Death which was derived from Epicurus Deprivation argument.

You've got a definitive, rational proof for god?

Put it up.

The idea is to win more delegates given an equal playing field, not one rigged behind the scenes, which is what happened.

After Sanders’ sweeping win in New Hampshire, the DNC went into hyper drive to break his momentum, starting in the next voting state Nevada.

Concerned Sanders would win Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader and most powerful elected official in Nevada, as it later emerged, arranged a plan with owners of Las Vegas casinos, where many caucuses were being held, and other employers, to ensure Clinton would win. The Nevada caucuses were then rigged with massive voting irregularities such as casino owners orchestrating which workers would be allowed to vote and, in clear intimidation, openly monitoring how they voted.

Not the way politics works, favors beget favors. If HRC made pres, Schultz would have had a nice position in HRC's administration.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was HRC's surrogate, & she still is.

No, I have no idea who would have won if it had been a fair contest by the time they got to the convention there was little that could be done.

The DNC subverted the procedure, for getting delegates to favor Clinton.

The Florida congresswoman did not go quietly. She reportedly resisted stepping down, and blamed subordinates for the content of the leaked emails that were released Friday, which clearly showed the committee’s posture of neutrality in the Democratic primary to have been a hollow pretense, just as Bernie Sanders and his supporters long contended. She finally relinquished the convention gavel only after receiving three days of strong-arming, a ceremonial position in the Clinton campaign, and a raucous round of boos at a convention breakfast.

Atlantic Magazine

""Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms."

Well, they do seem to be contradictory terms...reason versus magical thinking to put it in rationalistic terms.

Yes, she stacked the DNC against Bernie Sanders in an attempt to sabotage Bernie's campaign. When this became public Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned the DNC chair.

At least Trump won fairly. HRC cheated to win her nomination.

That's no argument. We all have beliefs that we may not be able to justify. I am saying in principal god can't be justified on a rational basis, god is kinda a paradigm case man.

I think many successful politicians tend to have psychopathic personalities traits with superficial charm, a grandiose notion of self-worth, the need for stimulation and impulsiveness, pathological lying, the ability to manipulate others and a lack of remorse and empathy. HRC & Trump both share these kinds of traits, but I think there is a spectrum, with people like Stalin, & Hitler on the extreme end.

I don't think the belief in god can be rationally justified. You got one?

There are two types of people. Those with a loaded gun, and those that dig, you dig?

"The Triple Duel".

Rational Theist? Spiritual Atheist?

"Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms.
"Spiritual Atheist" sure if by "Spiritual", deeply felt connection with others is meant, Oscar Wilde in his last work De Profundis , which was written while he was in prison wrote:

When I think of religion at all, I feel as if I would like to found as order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless, one might call it, when on an altar, on which no taper bured, a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling, might celebrate with unblessed bread and chalice empty of wine. Everything to be true must become religion. And agnosticism should have its ritual no less than faith.

The striking statement in this is "Everything to be true must become a religion" The meaning of the word true is not in its logical sense, its sense is existential.

Religion is a system of beliefs, that strongly affect those who believe. It provides believers with an order of practice, a way of living along side others who practice similar beliefs.

"FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide."
The story is completely false, but it was shared on Facebook over half a million times.

Good fake news writers (modern sophists) can make $10/30,000 per month according to National Public Radio. Capitalism is all over commodification, especially where there is low entry cost.

Would the essence of a railroad spike make sense without the essence of a hammer. Does something in the essence of a hammer precede the being of a railroad spike?

Saw this at MOMA, the colors were unbelievable, I have yet to see a reproduction that can match the colors in the original. I guess it was his pure black.

I have also read this but I think that family life back in that day must have been a lot different then family life now. Being ready to go into battle was important for many of these cities, and it was expected that the men teach the young boys from an early age how to fight. Women in Athenian (unlike Spartan society where they could hold property) were 2nd rate, with care of the homestead as their major role.

Athens must have been lawsuit crazy. Besides Socrates, Protagoras was exiled and if Socrates had wanted he probably would have been exiled or fined. He did not bring his wife or children to his trial, which was unusual. typically the wife and family are brought forth to plead for the defendant. Plato's works were carefully crafted narratives that did not openly criticize Athens. Aristotle took off to Macedonia when he thought the town was going to come down on him.

I also get the feeling that the city had its favorites, like Aristophanes. He criticized Cleon, a rough but successful general & ruler of Athens. Cleon sued Aristophanes for slander but Cleon never obtained a judgement against Aristophanes, who keep him as the brunt of his jokes even after Cleon had passed away.

Asking what Art's purpose is seems to me to be like asking what Man's purpose is, neither question is likely to be definitively answered. It would be interesting to know if Art gave rise to Religion, or Religion gave rise to Art. They both seem endless entwined throughout history. Did the cave painting of a gazelle capture the spirit of the gazelle for tribal members; did these people revere the cave painting it in the same way the Russian Orthodox followers revere their Icons. This reverence in Art has not gone away, I think Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein & other contemporary paintings/other works of Art that are iconic and sometimes ironic symbols of what our culture reveres.

Speaking of Art* as a movement of aesthetic works throughout history, is different than speaking about a particular work of art**. The stated purpose of a commissioned work of art**, may or may not match up with Art*s expectations, thinking of Lucian Freud's portraits. But his works become accepted because they opened up new territories in aesthetic taste, they unveil new possibilities which enable and continue the development of Art*.

Do you feel like you are stuck in such a filter bubble that you can't manage to find out facts about stuff? Is it such an effort to circumvent? It just seems highly exaggerated to me. Or again, is it just others who are too dumb to figure it out?

Sorry, hit post button before writing the post.

I used to buy adwords from Google. It works, many, many people don't go past the first few results. So, whatever filters may or may not be there can be quite important. The EU is suing Google over search results which the EU thinks support android, a Google product...so anti-trust.

We choose to do or not do something, our choice is based on what we desire. Sure we take pleasure in realizing many of our desires, pleasure is kinda of an 'impure' goal, isn't it, it can't stand on its own it always needs the object of desire, something to take pleasure in, it is morally flawed.

If we are constrained to make a certain choice then we are not free, and therefore not fully responsible for our action. Moral luck works against some people, circumstances mitigate against any free choice, like people fleeing Syria who have few options.

Are you sure that the freedom you are talking about as existing in the universe is not luck, chance, the actualization of a contingent possibility?

If you think there is a causal difference between freedom and luck, then what do you see as that difference.

Existentially I think that free agency implies moral responsibility for our actions.

If someone is tone deaf then they are unable to make sense of sound, pitch, and all the richness in sound. So no, if someone is so totally deficient, I doubt they can obtain the proficiency of a virtuoso (playing and composing music are different, Beethoven composed some of his best work while almost completely deaf).

It seems paradoxical to me that if someone enjoys music that they can also be fully tone death. I think that for many of us there are degrees of talent. Some do not have to work as hard as others, it just comes naturally to some. That does not mean that the person with innate talent will produce better music nor that the music they produce will be able to move us as much as much as someone else with lesser talent. I also think that some with less talent can become inspired on occasion, and produce marvelous works. Especially in music, we get those great 1 hit wonders.

I don't want to get into a philosophy of perception debate yet again, at least not just yet. We did it in what seemed to be tens of different threads within the past few months. Anyway, I'm a naive/direct realist. I think that representationalism is incoherent.

Ok we have run into an impasse regarding both what and how reality is constituted, yet we both agree that without mind there is no truth, even though we disagree on what constitutes that judgement. I think we also agree that what is, is...even if we differ about what reality entails for us and how it can be known (we are not idealists).

Hi, no I don't think so, but I'll think about it. TS probable has a ready answer.

We connect to facts that are not us via our abilities to move, to manipulate things, etc., as well as via perception.

So by sensation, we become aware of what is apparent, what is sensed, which we attempt to fit into our conception of what is in the world. The straight stick looks bent in the jar of water only apparently, conceptually we understand the optics, we understand that in order for something to seem the way it is there must be something behind it, something which may not be as it seems.

If Facts, states of affairs, the world are not us, then how do we connect to them? I think we connect immediately and mediately with sensually, conceptually, and linguistically.