agnostic — tim wood

Not agnosticism, but spite.

And nothing to do with bicycles.

I think it takes more than just neatly formulating your philosophical propositions. Buddhism did receive quite a bit of criticism from other systems, such as Advaita, and from the Bhakti movement that was quite popular.

This tends to show that not everyone was convinced. — Apollodorus

And how could they be convinced! People are generally given to eating, drinking, and making merry. Of course a religion that takes a dim view of eating, drinking, and making merry isn't going to be popular. At all.
This also explains why modern versions of Buddhism try to cast it as yet another system of eating, drinking, and making merry.

So who decides who is a real Christian? You?
— baker
Answer me this, yes or no: is a person a Christian (or anything else) just because they say they are? And if no, why not? — tim wood

And into Humpty Dumpty Land ...
Words should mean something, and they cannot simply mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.

It's one extreme to say that a Christian is whatever anyone who considers themselves a Christian says that a Christian is.
It's another extreme to say that a Christian is whatever anyone who doesn't consider themselves a Christian says that a Christian is.

Terms denoting political, religious, national, racial identity are usually difficult to pin down. People often fight about them.


I think terms denoting political, religious, national, racial identity should be used spitefully by outsiders/non-members, in order to force those who take pride in their political, religious, national, racial identity to clarify the definitions of those terms and to take up the fight amongst themselves, as opposed to with outsiders/non-members.

In other words, it's not mine to discern or define what is a Christian, but people using the term to describe themselves should work it out amongst themselves. My only potential task is to encourage them to do so.

Not enough trees, not enough forests.

Salvation is not to be found in an afterlife, but must be found, if at all, in this life, and belief in an afterlife or lack of an afterlife would seem to be a hindrance to ataraxia, a state of mind which would more likely come with a wholeheartedly lived suspension of judgement. — Janus

Is Belief in Rebirth Necessary?



What we believe or not believe about the "afterlife" influences how we act in the present.

If one disbelieves in rebirth, or lacks belief in rebirth, one acts as if though it doesn't exist. But one acts differently if one believes in rebirth, or considers it a possibility.


As for people who disbelieve in rebirth, or who lack belief in rebirth, I have observed the following in regard to enlightenment (one or a combination of more can be seen in such a person):

1. they generally lack ambition in spiritual life;
2. they believe they are already enlightened;
3. they believe they are inevitably close to being enlightened;
4. they believe enlightenment is an ancient, "highfalutin" idea that has no place in modern life;
5. they flat-out don't care about whether they become enlightened or not.

Modern people of the West, and this is particularly true of the English diaspora, have simply lost a mode of cognition that pre-modern people had, and so can't make sense of the morality contained, let's say, in Proverbs that leads to these sorts of conclusions. And so it strikes such people as ridiculous.
— Snakes Alive

...or perhaps "Modern people of the West" have reached a point of not accepting conclusions based on insufficient and contradictory accounts. — Banno

I don't think it's that, I think what you're saying is a rationalization.


There is an instructive scene in DeMille's Ten Commandments where one of the Israelites (Datan, IIRC), asks Moses in roundabout this: How do we know that God has indeed spoken to you? How do we know that what you're telling us is indeed what God has said?
And in reply Moses is furious.

There is an unspoken premise that we're not supposed to doubt the claims of those who claim to be messengers for God.
But since all kinds of people claim to be messengers for God, claiming all kinds of things, how are we to know who is a genuine one and who isn't?

This is a question that is tabooed in religion when it's asked by outsiders. I think it's because of this taboo that people aren't drawn to religion anymore.

What are we to make of an insuperable entity that insists on being worshiped and thanked in perpetuity? Set the punishment aside for a moment. What's up with the perpetual need for devotion and praise? This creature knocks out a cosmos and then require endless thanks? — Tom Storm

Like I said, if we start with the premise that Jehovah is a demigod, then it all makes sense. Jehovah occupies the position of a creator* deity. In Dharmic religions, this position is called "Brahma". Brahma can get quite full of himself, the power that he has can go to his head, thinking he's the first and most powerful being, confusing himself with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vishnu/Krishna.
It's the demigods who are eager to be worshipped, while Vishnu is quite relaxed, knowing that nothing happens without his will.


*The destroyer deity being Shiva. Vishnu kind of outsources his activities that pertain to the day-to-day operations of the universe to demigods.

In question is the judgement of those who think an evil god worthy of worship. — Banno

They don't think he's an evil god. They don't feel addressed by your criticism.

There is no Christian monopoly on virtue. — Banno

Actually, I have found Christians believe precisely that.

For example, a Christian "friend" insisted that the fact that I try to be honest in my dealings with others and some other virtues that he saw in me was evidence of having accepted Jesus into my heart (or some such). For him, it was inconceivable why else would I try to be honest.

(He was actually using this as a springboard for accusing me of refusing to "fully" give myself to Jesus and getting baptized.)


A religion's claim to monopoly on salvation is the justification for choosing said religion. A religion has no selling point unless it claims to have monopoly on salvation.

Perhaps, but I did read the article. I think "demonising" is a fairly accurate characterisation. Generally, in my examination of any religious tradition, i like to back to the founder's words rather than those of later functionaries of the bureaucracy. — unenlightened

What use is that?

That way, you usually get an abstract, theoretical, bookish version of a religion that nobody lives and nobody actually wants to live. Such a version of a religion is so abstract that it is indistinguishable from fiction.

And there is no shortage through the millennia, but it is a continuous betrayal of Christianity as characterised by the words and deeds of Jesus.

When the time came, Jesus didn't turn the other cheek. And he brought the sword, not peace. So, strictly speaking, Christians aren't actually far from Jesus, not at all.

Acting in line with them makes one a loser.
— baker

O loser of what? — Janus

Socioeconomic status. Happiness.

In order to be happy and to succeed in this world, it appears that a person must be willing to engage in and engage in a measure (the right measure) of lying, stealing, killing, cheating, gambling.

Official morality states that one is supposed to be fair, honest, kind, generous, goodwilled, respectful, responsible, hardworking, and such. But a person who actually behaves that way is a ninny and doesn't do well in life.

The issue here is as to the puzzling inconsistency of certain common doctrines. — Banno

There is an explanation with the help of which it all makes sense: Jehovah is a _demigod_. Not the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Let's take as an illustration two notable christian philosophers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine:
— Amalac

Thanks for this. Those who have claimed that belief in hell is not central to Christianity would do well to consider your post. — Banno

The threat of eternal damnation is Christianity's only selling point.

I say a god who inflicts infinite torture for finite offences is not worthy of worship. — Banno

If someone who claims to have the "Truth about God" (in this case, a Christian) tells you to convert to his religion, and you refuse to do so, he interprets this as if you had said "I hate God, we're through". (Nevermind your actual reasons. Neither God nor Christians care about those.)
In that sense, you have indeed committed a finite, but most importantly, final offense toward God, and it's an offense that severs all ties between you and God, and between you and Christians, thus you earn eternal damnation.

To be clear, you wouldn't actually be believing in God, you'd be believing in what some people told you on the topic of God. Unless we have actual, first-hand knowledge of God (which most of us don't), it all comes down to just believing what other people say.

/.../

IOW, set ourselves up as the judges over other people's religious identity.
— baker
I begin to suspect you're crazy. Where does your thinking come from? People say all kinds of things, but saying alone never makes it so, right? Being a Christian - or anything - is not settled merely because a person says he is. If that, then a Christian - or anything else - is whatever anyone says it is, whenever it pleases them to say it. Is that how you understand that world to operate when its operating reasonably well? — tim wood

*sigh*

So who decides who is a real Christian? You?

Suppose that science have achieve immortality for humans (whatever the mean for this).

What would be philosophical consequence? — John Pingo

Hellish boredom.

It's mortality that makes us get our butts in gear. — fishfry

"I should start this big project, which will take at least 5 years to complete, and it is the possibility that I could die tomorrow that motivates me to complete said project."

-- Said noone ever.

We shall simply inquire as to what a Christian is, and under what authority. Being satisfied along those lines, we ask whether the folks in question are Christian by that standard. And not withstanding what anyone says or claims or interprets, they either are, or they are not. — tim wood

IOW, set ourselves up as the judges over other people's religious identity.

You also don't know if there is a god to match any given interpretation. — Tom Storm

Then how do you know it's an interpretation?

We certainly have no way readily identifiable method for determining which interpretation is true (if any) so what does it leave us with?

Transcendental dread. Probably the original aim of hellish doctrines.

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.
Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship.
— Banno
I'm not sure Christians say or believe any of this. Cite? (Lots of people who call themselves Christians do say this, but they're not Christians.) — tim wood

And if we ask, "Who is a true Christian?", we shall be accused of a No True Scottsman fallacy?

No question that some - many - believe it, and many of those call themselves Christian. But I challenge it. Nor am I a defender of any faith, but I like accuracy and clarity. — tim wood

And for this, you shall burn! :fire::fire: :fire:

I don't think one should judge a person based solely on one contemptible view that they have about a certain subject, since they may have other redeemable views or qualities. — Amalac

Jews should associate with Nazis?
Blacks should make friends with KKK members?
Women should pursue intimate relationships with misogynists?

I find generic attacks inaccurate caricatures, treating religion as this monolithic belief system, as if they are all the same. — Hanover

Now that's a "generic attack".

The issue at hand is how to deal with those people who actually do believe in eternal damnation, or for whom we have reason to believe that they believe in eternal damnation (ie. people who declare to have an affiliation with a particular religion which has, as part of its doctrine, the doctrine of eternal damnation).

Roman Catholics, for example, are bound by their affiliation to the RCC to believe in eternal damnation, because eternal damnation is part of RCC doctrine. Even if occasionally, one can find Catholics who don't believe in eternal damnation.

The bottomline is that if someone professes affiliation to a particular religion, then we are justified to treat them as having assented to all the doctrinal points of said religion.

Religious individualism stops the moment someone declares affiliation to a particular religion.

What do you find questionable about the common ideas of virtue? — Janus

Acting in line with them makes one a loser.

Finally, all versions of god are interpretations. — Tom Storm

No, you can't possibly know that, for empirical reasons, because you haven't investigated every theist that has ever lived.

The only way you could know that "all versions of god are interpretations" is if you were god, and could this discern what is merely an interpretation and what is actually the truth.

if we subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, we must subscribe to Social Darwinism.
— baker

Why? Looks plain wrong to me. "Survival of the fittest" is not what evolution is about. — Banno

If you get to pick what to think about Christianity, Christians get to pick and choose what they think about evolution.

So the question is, what are we to make of their judgment? They choose to believe, not in the light of the evidence, but in the face of the evidence. They admire the worst conceivable torturer.

Such folk are ripe for manipulation. — Banno

Nah. Because:

Leaving that aside, is your point that good catholics, the pope included, do not actually believe the doctrine they espouse? That would indeed be a good thing. Would that they did not then feel obligated to pretend that they do, when dealing with events in the world. — Banno

I suspect such is the case generally among Christians. I've seen too many instances where Christians ridicule those who actually, really believe the doctrines, and even more so those who act accordingly.

The most plausible explanation seems to be that Christian doctrines, esp. the ones about eternal damnation, were devised as a means for combat, or at least that they function as sand thrown into the eyes of the enemy.

The strategy appears to be as folllows: Always present yourself as formidable and with powerful allies. Do whatever you can to make people fear you. This way, you will maximize your chances for success in the world.

Beliefs, in and of themselves, do not cause harm. So their beliefs are irrelevant.
— Pinprick

Indeed, with this i will pretty much agree. — Banno

Really? You can peacefully coexist with someone who believes you should be dead or suffer forever, and you know they believe thusly?

Whose beliefs are based on what? Feel-good love-dovey gut feelings.
— baker

On interpretations like anyone else. — Tom Storm

You don't actually know that. You have simply ruled out the possibility of God being what would usually be called "evil".

When someone believes s/he has the final solution (vide late Christopher Hitchens) to all our problems, rejecting it would be utter folly or, worse, siding with the devil, no? What would be an appropriate punishment for such wilful stupidity or evil? — Agent Smith

People should be punished for not believing someone who claims to have the solution???

Someone comes along, claiming to have the solution to all our problems -- and this alone should justify us believing this person, and if we don't, we deserve eternal punishment???

Do you even hear yourself?!


The gravity of the threat (or warning) or a solution doesn't mean that the threat/warning is about something that is actually true, or that the proposed solution is efficacious.

Perhaps we might agree that the presumption of virtue ont he part of the religious is... questionable? — Banno

Or perhaps question _our_ ideas of virtue?

many progressive Christians — Tom Storm

Whose beliefs are based on what? Feel-good love-dovey gut feelings.

grave concern over the hideous barbarism and nasty judgement of so much religious writing and practice. — Tom Storm

On the other hand, if we subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, we must subscribe to Social Darwinism.
And fire-and-brimstone religion is Social Darwinism.

Those who rejoice at the thought of seeing others suffer in hell for eternity while they themselves are happy in heaven everafter can always say to you, "See, this is survival of the fittest."

It is an exercise in religion-bashing, and the seeking of self-satisfaction that' us atheists are far more humane than those beastly Christians and Muslims could ever be'. So I don't think I'll play along. — Wayfarer

That's too bad. Maybe you could help. Many of us have quite traumatic experiences with Abrahamic religions. Recovering from religious abuse is still a taboo in Western culture. And you're helping to perpetrate it, helping the hardened atheist materialists become even more so.

But your birth is imposed on you, by God.
— baker

Where does the Bible say that? — Wayfarer

"You formed me in the womb" says the Psalmist.
Besides, it follows from God being omnimax that nothing happens without his will.

Buddhists believe that you are born out of the karma of previous lives, and that your condition is one of 'beginningless ignorance'. Should you not avail yourself of the opportunity to devote yourself to the Dharma in this brief sliver of time that your life occupies, then your fate might be a hell that is equally dreadful to any of those depicted in Dante's Inferno.

Ha! Now you're getting there.

Getting along with them is fine, until they want to introduce legislation that allows them to persecute LGTBQI+ children. — Banno

You and them have two foundational beliefs that are incompatible:

You believe that the world can and should be changed for the better.
The Abrahamic monotheists believe that the world is incorrigible, a vale of tears.

This is your essential and unbridgable disagreement.

Why would we let apologists for hatred and violence help build an agreement around ethics? — Tom Storm

Given that we want some kind of democracy and that they make up a considerable portion of the human population, what choices do we have?

I think this depiction relies on a peculiarly modern conception of God as a kind of camp commandant. The Christian view would be more that due to humanity's inherent predeliction to sub-optimal behaviour (consequence of 'the original sin') then the outcome of their life choices is likely to be poor ('hell'). They are offered a way to avoid this fate ('salvation') but should they reject it willfully, then the consequences are on them. I believe this is what is behind C.S. Lewis statement that 'the doors of hell are locked from the inside.' It's not imposed on them except as a consequence of their decisions. — Wayfarer

But your birth is imposed on you, by God.

God, supposedly in his infinite wisdom and goodness, made you inherently sinful and deserving of eternal suffering. Nevermind the "inherited sin" theory; God knew it all, he put it all in motion, nothing happens without his will, he is reponsible for your birth and your nature.

And the only way you can avoid your horrible fate is by believing what some people tell you, people who beat you, rape you, and generally don't care whether you live or die. Truly, people whose word you should take for gold!

My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. Given their avowed admiration for evil, ought we trust their ethical judgement? — Banno

When your face is printed on the money, you can do what you want. But until such a time, you just might have to find a way to get along with others, regardless of their morality.

We’ll at least you can look forward to pupating. — Wayfarer

Nah, we'll make silk out of his cocoon.

If you don't hold the beliefs I attributed to you and hence don't disagree with what I've been saying (even though to me your responses made it look as though you were disagreeing) all you have to say is that you don't disagree.

If you do disagree I would like to know precisely what you are disagreeing with and why, otherwise discussion is pointless. All this talk about me feeling this or that, and me projecting this and that is pointless. I'm not interested in that. — Janus

The manner in which you're conducting this discussion is part of the discussion.

I remember I minor epiphany in my youth, crossing the Harbour Bridge on a bus. I suddenly saw that a lot of what bothered me was only me; that everyone else on that bus had exactly the same concerns. And that it really didn’t matter. It was just fleeting, not a big deal, but I remember it being a very liberating moment. — Wayfarer

One still needs to earn a living, ensure one's place in the world, fight the struggle for survival, for status, for respect.
So those things that "bother one" are a big deal, they do matter, even if everyone has them.

If you yourself don't taste a mango, you'll never have the first-hand knowledge that the epistemic community of mango tasters have.
— baker

Hey, leave qualia out of this... — Tom Storm

The issue isn't even about qualia. It's about interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge.

For example, a doctor with proper training can discern, simply with the use of a stethoscope, the various sounds that the human heart makes and is able to asses whether the heart is healthy or not. Other doctors with such training can also discern and evaluate those sounds. They can also recognize whether a particular other doctor has discerned the sounds correctly or not. In contrast, people who are not thusly trained are unable to discern those sounds or recognize whether another person can discern them or not.

I contend that such interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge applies also to religion/spirituality. While @Janus thinks that I am deluded to think this way. Perhaps he thinks this way also about doctors, engineers, musicians, atheletes, anyone who has expertise in a specialized field of knowledge ...