Would it be a good idea to teach young children about philosophy?

Yes, it would. We should teach them that, generally speaking, philosophy is a largely irrational activity which has little relevance to their future lives, and that the more advanced one's philosophy education is, the more this tends to be true. And yes, before you ask, I have evidence.

I have spent literally years on an uncountable number of philosophy websites, including this one of course, trying to interest philosophers in discussing nuclear weapons, an ever imminent catastrophic existential threat to everything we hold dear all over the planet. This project has been a complete and utter failure. As just one of so many examples, see this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9333/insanity-squared

Very close to totally dead except for my posts.

And, the situation gets even worse if you try to engage academic philosophers. I spent every day for months on a group blog run by a leading academic philosophy organization. Mostly Phds and philosophy grad students. The blog has thousands of articles, and only a single article about nuclear weapons. And that single article exists only because the exasperated editor finally posted it in a hurry just to shut me up.

Philosophy is a land of fantasy my friends.

It would be wise to teach children this before they become brain washed enough to get sucked in to believing the credentials and authority scam.

We associate 'religion' with all kinds of pre-enlightenment mentalities - supersition, dogma, mind control and the like. — Wayfarer

To quibble just a bit, while you've probably accurately described philosophers, and particularly atheist philosophers, a great many people who are actually religious don't consider their religion a "pre-enlightenment mentality" at all, and often with very good reason. As example...

Most of the discussion about religion on Western philosophy forums is about Christianity, for obvious reasons. And so it might be asked.....

Why should we consider the experience of love to be a "pre-enlightenment mentality"???

This is not a rebuttal to you Wayfarer, because I know the above doesn't need to be explained to you. But it does seem to need to be explained to 95% of our honorable fellow commentators.

Thank you for a quite articulate, thoughtful and educational post. Particularly educational for those like myself who really know little about Buddhism.

And on that note, thought is not treated as a required mechanical process. It is treated as a tool for well-being, and it is also a tool which can be put down when it is no longer needed. — TLCD1996

Given your obvious knowledge I accept your report that Buddhists, or at least some segment of Buddhists, don't "treat thought as a required mechanical process". I have no complaint with how they might regard it other than to remind us that thought is obviously required for human survival, and that thought is a mechanical function of the body just like eating, sleeping, sex etc.

This last point seems quite important to me so I will expand on it. Perhaps you can educate me regarding how the following thoughts might be related to Buddhism in general, or the flavors of Buddhism you are most familiar with.

We philosopher types enjoy our grand sophisticated theories because, well, that's who we are and this is what we do. Most of us were born this way and don't really have a choice about it, myself included. While such activity tends to be a compelling form of entertainment for us, it's of little interest to most human beings, who are typically far more practical than they are abstract. Evidence, philosophy departments are shrinking or closing all over the place because the public doesn't really see the point of philosophy, and thus doesn't wish to pay for it (a rational conclusion I find myself quite sympathetic to).

Enter the fact that thought is a mechanical function of the body. I see this as very good news because mechanical functions can be managed by simple mechanical means, which makes solutions accessible to far more people. As example...

- When you're tired you rest. You don't need a philosophy degree or 23 years in a monastery to figure out what to do here.

- When you're hungry you eat. Simple. Obvious. Effective. No need for sophisticated fancy talk theories.

- When you're horny, you do whatever it is you do. No experts required. No years of study involved.

Point being, mechanical functions lend themselves to very accessible management solutions which are readily available to pretty much anyone who is the least bit serious. It makes sense to focus on these kinds of widely applicable solutions first before diving in to sophisticated theories and practices which will be of interest to only a relative few.

What most human beings are suffering from is overheated brains, an essentially mechanical issue. Thought can be very useful and enjoyable, so we tend to use it too much, leading to stress upon the thought machine which manifests itself in various forms of psychic pain, which the body uses as a signal that we're going in the wrong direction. There's nothing complicated about this. If we eat too much we'll get a stomach ache, a signal from the body to stop eating.

The above mechanical perspective is typically of little to no interest to we philosopher types for the following reasons:

1) It's our nature to whip up complex abstractions.

2) We want a path, a program, a system, a becoming trip that we hope will take us somewhere "advanced".

3) We don't really give a crap what kinds of solutions would be most accessible to most people.

Please observe how with all other mechanical functions of the body we take a straightforward practical approach to solving problems, but when it comes to thought we want to complicate the subject to the greatest degree possible. My argument is...

1) That's not rational.

2) Nor is it compassionate or serious.

Too many words here as usual. Over to you!

...but it also raises the question of whether it is faith or works that justify you in the eyes of God. — david plumb

As I see it, works serve the function of being a reality check. One could say they have faith, and sincerely mean it. Works help one understand how true that feeling is.

You have an unusually low view of philosophy. But I suppose you're right for some so-called philosophers. — FrancisRay

Well, I might have been overly dramatic in my last comment. I do that sometimes. You can call me Professor Troll as my punishment. :-)

I'm striving for being realistic though.

Most of us here do have big picture nerd minds, and not by choice. And most of what we discuss together is considered an impractical waste of time by most folks, with some good reason. And I think there is some reality to the notion that we philosopher types often attempt to make ourselves feel bigger by attaching ourselves to big ideas.

"Hey everybody, look at me, here's my huge very important theory about the biggest subject of them all, the nature of God!!"

Don't know about you, but personally I make such ego moves all the time. I see I have a good bit of company.

I'll admit to having a complicated relationship with philosophy, with thought itself. A quick story to illustrate. I spent today way out in the woods in a beautiful palmetto forest. The longer I was there the slower the gears of my nerd mind rolled until finally I was totally content sitting still doing nothing but looking around for a couple hours. Still. At peace. Enough. The price tag for such rewarding experiences is....

Letting go of all my grand ideas. To paraphrase and probably butcher Jesus, :-) I had to die to the realm of abstractions in order to be reborn in to the real world.

The real world is where it's at guys, not our thoughts about the real world. Our thoughts about the real world can certainly be useful, indeed essential, but they are still a watered down, diluted, second hand experience. Our thoughts about the real world might be compared to your photo on Facebook. The photo has it's practical uses, but surely the real you is far more interesting than the photo, right?

Is this a low view of philosophy? I'm content that you should answer that question. To me, it's using philosophy to discover the limits of philosophy.

Regarding the multitude of arguments for theism and atheism, is it reasonable for both sides to hold the positions they hold? — DPKING

These beliefs are understandable, but not technically reasonable.

1) The vast majority of arguments both for and against theism assume, typically without any questioning at all, that a God exists or doesn't exist, either/or, one or the other.

2) The vast majority of reality at every scale, space, can not be clearly said to either exist or not exist, as this phenomena has properties which fit our definitions of both existence AND non-existence.

3) Thus it's not reasonable to assume without questioning that a God could only exist or not exist.

And...

It's not reasonable for me to type this a hundred more times on the forum as the evidence strongly suggests that doing so will have no effect on anything. But I probably will anyway, as I too am not reasonable.

Didn't read any of that, don't plan to. — StreetlightX

What a surprise!!! I'm shocked! Who knew this could happen??? :-)

Religion arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought itself. — Hippyhead

This is where the action is, in my typoholic opinion. And, it may interest you, this can be a basis for offering a valid critique of a great deal of religion, especially the parts that annoy you the most.

Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

1) We are then able to rearrange the conceptual parts in our minds to create visions of reality which don't yet exist. This is the source of our creative genius as a species.

2) The very same process of division creates the human experience of being divided from reality, our peers, and divided within our own minds as well. As example, consider the phrase "I am thinking X", with "I" presumed to be one thing, while "X" is presumed to be another.

This process of division, which is built in to what we all are made of psychologically, creates an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very very small, and "everything else" being very very big. This perception gives rise to fear, which is the source of most human problems, which in turn is the source of religion.

A great deal of religion attempts to heal this division with ideologies made of thought, the very thing which is causing the experience of division. Oops!! Thus we see phenomena like Christianity, a religion explicitly about bringing people together in peace, which then divides in to a thousand sects which come in to conflict with each other.

And then we see ideological atheism arise in response, which at it's best also seeks to bring peace, but attempts to do by becoming just another one of the divided sects in conflict with other sects.

And then we see this poster arise, who attempts to seek peace by going to war with ideological atheism. :-)

And so, whatever philosophy one prefers, the conflict goes on and on and on. And it keeps going on and on and on in every time and place because the entire process is being driven by the divisive nature of what we're all made of, thought.

A reminder. Perhaps the most productive thing a philosopher can do is shift some focus from the content of thought to the nature of thought. Because that's where all the content of thought comes from.

I haven't talked to him. — frank

Feel free anytime. You're asking a lot of good questions. I'm interested.

While this amateur armchair speculation is very cute, I will refer you to the article in the OP - on which this thread is about - which demonstrably shows otherwise. — StreetlightX

Religion has thrived in every time and place, at least since the invention of agriculture, and likely in less organized forms before that. Ignoring this well established fact in favor of ideological wishful thinking is not such great philosophy.

I've already agreed that changing cultural circumstances can edit the forms that religions take. So, for example, as a society becomes wealthier and more educated the more dogmatic childlike religions may give way to more sophisticated forms of religion. For example, in our times many people report that they are "spiritual but not religious".

A quick story. When I was young I happened to become close with some VERY rich people who lived nearby. The oldest son of the family, the heir apparent, become a life long drug addict. Our entire society is extremely wealthy compared to earlier times, and our culture is loaded with too many personal problems to begin to list.

So long as such deeply personal problems exist some people are going to turn for help to communities with thousands of years of experience in welcoming the troubled. And some people will look elsewhere of course, as has always been the case.

If religion was a creature we would have to say that it's long and persistent survival suggests that it is very well adapted to it's environment. The reason religion persists is because that environment, the human mind, has not changed substantially in many thousands of years.

Religion arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought itself. Unless and until the nature of thought is somehow fundamentally changed, until we evolve in to something that we wouldn't recognize as human, religion will be with us in some form or another.

That's an odd thing to assume. Maybe he doesn't want to throw his pearls in the wrong direction. — frank

A good philosophy professor answers every question with another question, drawing the listener in to their own investigation. A not so good philosophy student demands to know what to memorize for the test.

Someone who is sincerely interested in a topic will already be involved in their own investigation, as evidenced by them already having something to say. If a person isn't interested in a topic, ok, no problem, their valid choice. But then why waste a lot of words on them about a topic they're not actually interested in? A wiser choice would be to simply bow out, ideally with a bit more class than I usually manage. :-)

The purpose of philosophy is to give those of us afflicted with big picture nerd minds something to do that sounds important, thus making us feel important.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium. — praxis

If you're actually interested in the subject you'll do more than sit on your fat ass waiting for me to type something you can reject. :-) We're done, waste of time.

How much longer, until a "Constantine" takes possession of the American civilization? And after him, how long before a "Theodosius" forbids pagans - today's Christians - from worshiping their God? — Gus Lamarch

Well, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, so I'd guess it will be awhile.

The question of whether Christianity is good or not, useful or not, does not come into question, as it is not the issue being discussed. — Gus Lamarch

Sorry, I got confused and thought the thread had something to do with what is reasonable.

You seem to suggest that you have answers to your four questions but for some weird reason aren't saying. — praxis

The method to my madness is to encourage readers to do some of the thinking involved for themselves. But ok, here's a clue.

People seek food (ie. meaning) because they want food. Why do they want food?

In a word, the need is meaning... — praxis

We can't sum up anything as large as religion in a word, but ok, that's a place to start.

It's clear that many people look to religion to provide meaning, some story about our relationship with reality. So let's keep digging..

Instead of arguing about which story is better we might ask, what is a story? A story is a collection of symbols, abstract concepts in our mind, which strive to point to the reality of our human situation.

Why do we seek such stories? What is the need which causes us to go looking for stories? Yes, we want meaning. But why? Why do we seek meanings?

Keep digging...

Isn't it interesting how popular it is to call Trump stupid. And yet he is President, and we are not. And he is rich, and we are not. And he totally dominates all forms of media almost minute by minute, and nobody gives the slightest shit what we have to say.

And he beat every Republican, and every Democrat, all the professional politicians, all the talking heads, all the expert insiders. All of them.

A world class asshole, yes, totally agree there. But not stupid.

And Trump is not a populist either. He's a quite intelligent asshole who has persuaded you that he's a populist. Trump has no political beliefs beyond the pursuit of his own self interest, which is primarily his childlike need for ceaseless attention. Please recall, Trump donated to various Clinton campaigns and causes. He would have happily run as a leftist if that was where the opportunity lie.

Trump's gift is that he can see through many of the lies we tell ourselves. Perhaps this is a talent which comes naturally to compulsive liars?

As example, the media is constantly patting itself on the back for being a heroic public service etc. Trump sees through the fantasy and knows the media is just another profit seeking business. He feeds them the drama their business model depends on, and in return they give him billions upon billions of dollars of free advertising, while they pretend to be appalled by the drama he has handed them.

The religious right is constantly patting itself on the back about it's moral superiority. Trump sees through that fantasy too, and proves it by getting them to enthusiastically vote for the most immoral president we've had in my lifetime.

The Democrats constantly pat themselves on the back about their intellectual superiority (like you're doing) and Trump sees through that, and proves it by winning a campaign they all confidently predicted he had no chance of winning.

Trump is the kind of guy who went down to the crossroads and sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for some extraordinary political talents.

Thus: the way to kill God is not though petty arguments but through a rugged materialism - good lives for all, security of body and community, to each according to their need, from each according to their ability. — StreetlightX

The lack of understanding of religion on all the philosophy forums is pretty remarkable.

A socialist utopia would have considerable merit, but it won't change the human condition which is the source of religion.

Religion has thrived in all times and places. What we should learn from that is that religion doesn't arise from particular cultural circumstances. Those circumstances shape the form a particular religion will take, but they are not the source of religion. Thus, changing those circumstances will not end religion.

Bringing religion to an end would require understanding the fundamental human need which gives rise to religion and then providing, at massive scale, some manner of meeting that need which users find more effective than religion.

He couldn't be more traditional, merely a different brand — praxis

Thank you for your highly predictable reactionary gotcha remark.

I say potato, you say potawto.

I say potawto, you say potato.

I say tomato, you say tomawto.

I say tomawto, you say tomato.

I'm voting for Trump because of this amazing accomplishment. He's made us long for traditional politicians! Incredible! Who knew that was possible???

Are there any Bushes left? Clintons we forgot about? Carter's only 95, maybe he'll run! Ok, I know Reagan is dead, but isn't that better than when he was senile? Is Nixon still available, does anyone know?

This was and remains one of the great problems of Christianity. Jesus left nothing written, so what we have is the individual interpretation of the apostles. — Gus Lamarch

From another perspective, this problem goes away. Like this...

Each person can examine Christian suggestions for themselves, try out those suggestions which engage them, and then come to their own conclusions regarding the value of those suggestions. It doesn't really matter who wrote the suggestion, or when they wrote it, or if they actually wrote it, or whether the suggestion is a misinterpretation of someone else's ideas, or any of that. If one can set aside authority worship and do one's own homework, then every person one meets can be one's teacher.

It doesn't really matter if some advice is a specifically Christian suggestion, as there is considerable overlap between the major religions. Christianity says love your neighbor as yourself, while the Buddhists advise compassion. Christianity says die to be reborn, while Hindus have spent centuries exploring the psychological death of meditation. Different cultures, different speakers, different histories etc, but very similar messages.

Does the whole subject of religion make you wanna puke? Ok, no problem, as atheists can explore the same territory using their own methodologies. Observation of reality is a powerful path to walk, especially if one is actually observing reality, and not just one's thoughts about reality, which is something else altogether. If one sets aside the thoughts and observes reality directly, one is dying to the symbolic, and being reborn in to the real. Don't want to call that God? Then don't, call it something else. End of problem.

Who cares what Paul said? Paul is dead, and nobody will ever know for sure what he said or what he meant. He may not have been clear about what he meant himself, who knows?

There are some words by somebody on some page. If we can use them, then use them.

Hear my applause for a thoughtful well constructed argument. Here are a few thoughts which your post inspired.

=========

1) According to the Gospels, on the cross Jesus is reported to have said, "God, why have you forsaken me?"

If Jesus did say this, his statement suggests Jesus didn't know that he was going to be resurrected, if that did in fact happen. It also suggests that Jesus, whether human or in human form, could be in error like all other humans. Or, it could be that Jesus wasn't wrong in saying this, but was experiencing a kind of death bed conversion which is very inconvenient for Christian ideology. If we are going to sweep this statement of Jesus off the table, then all other statements of Jesus can also be brought in to question.

=========

2) A key challenge I see with all Bible interpretation is that we are hearing messages from a very different time and place culturally, and translation in to our own modern culture can be exceedingly difficult. The people of that time didn't live in the age of science like we do where literal facts are considered paramount. Much of the Bible seems to be written in a kind of parable fable art form.

As example, the Adam and Eve story tells deep truths about the human condition that are remarkably relevant to our own times. But I don't believe there really was a guy, a gal, and a talking snake. So, as I see it, that story requires a translation from the parable fable form to more literal language for it to be credible to we moderns.

The point here is that a key statement by Jesus seems to be his advice to "Die and be reborn" which I see as extremely wise psychological/spiritual advice, but perhaps not a literal description of his own physical fate, ie. resurrection.

This can continue to be debated for centuries of course. I'm just suggesting that by focusing on literal interpretations of the Bible we may be missing gems hiding in the parable art form presentation.

Finally, in defense of the parable fable form of writing, we might note that the Bible is the best selling book of all time and has succeeded in sharing it's message across many centuries. While personally my ability is limited to logical rhetorical arguments, as I've gotten older I've come to see that art is a more powerful medium than literal logical statements.

If you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution then that throws a darkness over whether the Adam and Eve story really happened. — david plumb

Imho, it happened, but not literally. That is, in my view, the story represents in fable form the emergence of thought (ie. knowledge) in human beings. It's reasonable for we moderns to reject the fable form of communication, but the message of the Adam and Eve story is worth considering.

Adam and Eve ate the apple of knowledge and were thus evicted from the Garden of Eden.

We modern humans have embraced the knowledge explosion in a largely blind child like manner, and the products of that knowledge explosion appear poised to evict us from the Garden of Eden of modern civilization, perhaps from the Earth itself.

Thousands of massive hydrogen bombs stand by on hair trigger alert ready to destroy many or most major population centers all over the world in just minutes. What is not destroyed by the bombs will likely be destroyed by the resulting mass starvation, social and political chaos etc. Climate change may be the trigger that destabilizes the global order and set things off.

Point being, yes, the Adam and Eve tale reads like a children's fable, but the connection between knowledge and eviction from the "Garden of Eden" is very real.

The original author of the story knew nothing of the industrial revolution, nuclear weapons, climate change etc of course. But my guess is that the original author had a deep understanding of the human condition, and based on that understanding could credibly predict where our journey was headed.

In other words, could it not be that logic laws, physics laws, etc. are laws by which God operates in our world? — Joaquin

It could be of course. Not being God myself I don't claim to know. This might interest you...

About a month ago I heard a story on NPR where they interviewed an astrophysicist who said that quantum mechanics suggests that the laws of physics can change. According to her, a random quantum event in one part of the universe could create a bubble within which different laws would exist. According to the theory, the bubble would expand at the speed of light, destroying everything it swallowed. I'm surely not qualified to comment on this, but it was interesting to hear a scientist claim that the laws of physics are not fixed, but could be fluid like pretty much everything else.

And here's a thought experiment...

When will science end? When will the scientists hold a press conference to announce they've learned everything and thus are closing up shop? If you answer, a very long time or never, it logically follows that we currently know very very little in comparison to what can be known.

If true, we can reason further that even if it is so that there is a God who follows the laws of nature, we have only the slightest compression of those laws, thus all the fancy logic dancing being done based on such ignorance is most likely folly. Entertaining perhaps, but not to be taken seriously.

God cannot create square circles or take self-contradictory actions — Isabel Hu

God is bound by logic rules invented by human beings? If there is a God, he created a vast universe out of nothing or something very close to it.

Trying to apply logic calculations to issues the scale of gods seems rather a bit of folly to me honestly.

In other words the mainstream view seems to be that evolution disproves god and to incorporate evolution as part of god's creative act is a contradictio in terminis. — TheMadFool

Perhaps this is the "mainstream" view primarily among those already inclined not to believe in God, who are in fact, not actually the mainstream?

I would agree that evolution debunks a childlike Santa's workshop vision of God, which perhaps was prevalent among uneducated peasants of yesteryear. Beyond that, to me evolution seems a point in favor of an intelligent source to reality given that evolution is a self regulating mechanism. Not proof of God, just a point scored for the theist team.

However, that said, I remain persuaded that the theist vs. atheist paradigm is probably so hopelessly flawed as to be largely useless, and that whatever the reality is it likely bears little resemblance to that debate. Generally speaking, my sense is that that debate persists because it's like a familiar card game where everyone knows the rules and thus can be comfortable and generally lazy in playing their preferred cards.

I don't know what you're talking about. — TheMadFool

1) Science develops new knowledge.

2) Is that a good thing?

3) That depends on whether we can handle the new knowledge.

I was speaking of Nietzsche's view of Christianity. — Octopus Knight

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Well, if Nietzsche's view was that all Christians are X, then he was an incompetent commentator on that particular subject, and should be ignored.

Science, to me, is the one thing we can all agree on because its fundamental modus operandi is based wholly on what is demonstrable. — TheMadFool

1) Is science a generally reliable method of generating new knowledge? I'm guessing we'd all agree the answer is yes.

2) Can human beings successfully manage any amount of new knowledge delivered at any rate? It seems essential to seek an answer to this question, because the knowledge explosion feeds back upon itself, leading to an ever accelerating development of new knowledge.

The Christian rejects this life and this world for a supposed better eternal life and eternal world to come — Octopus Knight

Well, given that there are a couple of billion Christians, and that earnest disagreements of interpretation exist even within single congregations, any attempts to define all Christians as a single unified group seem doomed to incompetence, the most common form of commentary about Christianity on philosophy forums.

Within the couple billion Christians there are some which fit your description.

Not to mention his whole attempt to create a "superior morality" based on strength, when this is just a mask to hide his own personal emotional weakness (which we know today from the access we have to his letters). In other words, Nietzsche's books are a mere self-help made for himself. — gaules

It often seems true that it is ourselves that we are writing to, and that we often don't quite realize who our intended audience really is.

Is philosophy itself collapsing into chaos? — Jack Cummins

Philosophy forums may over represent the phenomena that concerns you, because they tend to be dominated by privileged young suburban white almost men who are in the process of discovering that the world is not always a nice place. As they go through this stage they sometimes get carried away. I call it college sophomore syndrome.

When I was that age I went on a binge of reading writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn with his horrific descriptions of the Russian gulag, in between reading epic volumes about the Holocaust, and so on. It was a phase. I got over it.

I actually remember the first moment it dawned on me that you couldn't always count on things to work out. I was maybe 12, walking down the block towards the beach at night. Nothing bad was happening at that moment, other than my maturing juvenile nerd brain awakening to the reality of suffering for the first time.

Little suburban white boys. We have such transitions.

Guys and girls please keep this thread on topic, thanks. — StreetlightX

And, please note, the real topic of this thread is talking about departed members behind their backs once they no longer have the opportunity to reply. How courageous!

I don't think we really need to know who was banned, or have a public discussion of their supposed personal shortcomings. But knowing why a person was banned could be helpful in assisting the rest of us in avoiding such behaviors. So, this chatty gossip thread might be replaced with a neutral information only listing like this:

---------------
Date: xx/xx/xxxx
Mod: some_mod
Notice: A member was banned today for the following reasons:
Reasons: X, Y and Z
---------------

Positive nihilism, proposed by Nietzsche and other philosophers, denies the Christian morality by pointing out that Christian morality is slave morality, which is meaningless, undesirable and devastating to individuals. — xinye

Can you expand on this? Why did Nietzsche feel that Christian morality is slave morality? Why did he label it "meaningless, undesirable and devastating to individuals"?

Your warning has no power — Gregory

Correct. So just keep on doing what you're doing, and the mods can take care of it from there.

I have written detailed threads refuting Christianity. — Gregory

Stick with that and you'll stay out of trouble. Detailed is good, refuting Christianity or anything else is fine.

As for juvenile, look at all the Christians who like the homo-erotic Mel Gibson movie. Jim Caviezel's performance was one of the gayest things I've ever seen and I have no doubt most Christian men want to have sex with Jesus. THAT is juvenile — Gregory

If you insist on repeatedly posting thread clogging crap like the above I predict your days here are numbered. I'm not a mod, but I have seen them ban people without warning for less. You've been warned.

To avoid any further bother, just raise your game so that your posts look like they belong on a philosophy forum.

Christians are persecuted because it is a religion for trolls — Gregory

We get that you are against Christianity. I have no problem with that at all.

But please stop clogging every other thread with lazy, boring, juvenile little one liners on the subject.

This is a philosophy forum, not your Facebook page. If you wish to be a critic of Christianity or anything else, please try to do so in an intelligent, thoughtful, reasonably well informed manner.

Jesus is a communist. — unenlightened

To quibble, Jesus was a socialist. A communist would not have said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

A pencil doesn't have atoms? — TheMadFool

Of course it has atoms, but the pencil overwhelmingly consists of space, like everything else. You know, an atom is mostly space.

Space doesn't have atoms. — TheMadFool

Right. And so space doesn't meet our definition of existence, as it has no mass or weight etc. But as we seem to all agree, space is nonetheless real.

In short, you believe god doesn't exist but god is real. — TheMadFool

I don't believe anything about god one way or the other.

I'm examining the God debate.

1) We can observe how there is near universal agreement between theists and atheists that a God either exists, or not, one or the other.

2) We can observe that this either/or, exists or not, one or the other assumption at the heart of the God debate is false. "Exists" and "doesn't exist" are not the only options. Space illustrates that a phenomena can both: 1) not meet our definition of existence, and 2) be real.

What I see happening is that we've attempted to map a simplistic dualistic "exists or not" paradigm which is useful in our everyday human scale lives, on to an entirely different scale such as we enter when discussing the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, ie. God theories.

95%+ of God theories and debate by both amateurs and professionals are built upon the "exists or not" assumption. Most commentators focus all their attention on achieving a rhetorical victory on that battlefield. If we 1) disengage from the either/or battlefield, and 2) instead look at the either/or assumption those battles are built upon, and 3) discover that assumption is wrong, then....

We have liberated ourselves from the God debate in it's usual form.

And, we have liberated ourselves from authority, given that most authority figures on all sides take the either/or, exists or not, one or the other assumption at the heart of the God debate to be an obvious given not meriting our attention. In other words, the emperor has no clothes, the authority figures on all sides don't really know what they're talking about. They are probably authorities because they have the knack for projecting that image.

Given that the God debate has failed to produce anything but more of the same for at least 500 years, liberating ourselves from this proven failure, and those leading it, seems a step in the right direction.