I wasn't talking about intentional mischaracterization. I think many atheists don't think twice when they say things like that. — T Clark

I'm afraid only a theist can correct a mischaracterization of their ideas, particularly if it's unintentional. They can be rather odd and unintuitive.

I agree that there are atheists who intentionally mischaracterize religious ideas out of prejudice. There are also theists who intentionally mischaracterize atheist ideas out of prejudice. Basic tribalism really. Not everyone relates to those they disagree with on that level though, you know.

If I'm wrong why you don't try to clarify what you mean?

And that's what atheists reject. The ineffable doesn't need great big piles of filigreed stonework, or Indian converts, or red letter days to glorify it. — Vera Mont

Yes.

@T Clark seems to be claiming, unless I'm misinterpreting him, that believers only believe in the ineffable, not anything particular, and not the words that are preached to them. Atheists come up with the particulars, all the words, the so-called 'boxes'.

That doesn't seem true, of course.

The only reason that religion works is because God is ineffable and requires some sort of **special access** unavailable to the common folk. Do religious authorities present God or the ineffable? How can they if it is beyond words and mundane experience. Followers must rely on faith. They must have faith in the words (strawmen) of their leaders.

Indeed. I include that in what I said earlier. Perhaps an unintentional straw man argument. — Tom Storm

The problem is that they're all strawmen. Every God ever preached about is a strawman and not the REAL God. God is a boxed-up strawman. Atheists question these boxes of strawmen. They don't question what is beyond the boxes when questioning theistic claims, and they don't make up their own boxes of strawmen.

TC seems to be saying that atheists twist ideas of god into distortions and then use those distortions as evidence that God is a problematic idea. In other words, it's a variation on a straw man argument. — Tom Storm

Now that I think about it a bit more, I think Clark may be saying something different. Basically that God is ineffable so any dumb atheist that comes along with their boxy reason will be invariably off the mark. God cannot fit in a box. The believers know that. Atheists are too clueless to grasp this wonderous truth.

Is that about right, @T Clark ?

You have misunderstood and misused my metaphor. — T Clark

That's a serious accusation and being so deserving of an explanation.

Atheists don't make up religions. Religious leaders do. They box up God, Gods, or whatever. Atheists question these stories or 'boxes'.

Atheism forces God into little boxes and then complains when the boxes don't stack neatly. — T Clark

Rather, atheists complain about the untidiness of the boxes that religious leaders put God into.

We’ll all be DEAD before we finish this game… — Mikie

I’m beginning to think that that’s his basic can’t lose strategy.

Nah, at this pace it'll be just a few short years.

@Hanover

The perfect countermove is for Hanover to kingside castle. Do it! :point:

Oho, Hanover blocks the castle.

In The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism, Weber believed that the Protestant ethic was the driving force behind the mass action that led to the development of capitalism. Importantly, even after religion became less important in society, these norms of hard work and frugality remained, and continued to encourage individuals to pursue material wealth.

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest.

If my opinion is correct, then the rise of sustainable environmentalism throughout the world will be correlated with a rejection of today's widespread atheistic beliefs for metaphysical belief systems that give moral incentive for individuals to live sustainably. — sime

:lol: That's not how it works, actually. When you abandon reason things can get rather counterintuitive.

Better known for their high-dollar political spending, the billionaire Koch brothers have also poured millions into Catholic University’s business school to promote a free-market orthodoxy sharply at odds with the teachings [earthly stewardship] of Pope Francis. — https://prospect.org/culture/koch-brothers-latest-target-pope-francis/

Different people interpret it in different ways, which is not unusual. — T Clark

Not unusual at all. A Buddhist might experience “emptiness” (no God), for example, and someone else might experience something more akin to a sky-father. If the experience doesn’t align with or isn’t affiliated with any religion then it’s not a religious experience, though it could be the birth of a new religion, if the experiencer possessed sufficient charisma.

Call it what you will, but it is part of what it means to be a theist. — T Clark

It’s part of a particular tribe of theism if it is “religious”.

Not all of them I imagine, he did show a lot of skin. :lol:

I think religious feeling ultimately comes from personal experience of God. — T Clark

It could only be a religious feeling if whatever is experienced is inline with a religion, otherwise it’s just an experience, perhaps a spiritual experience.

I watched The Long Goodby last night. Man, they sure don’t make movies like they used to. The pacing was so much slower. The first 15 minutes of the film were dedicated to the feeding of a cat. Not that that’s not “okay with me”. Strangely, the acting felt almost like a stage play.

The part with Arnold was just weird and definitely not his best work.

By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is probably better described as a method.
— praxis

I wasn't thinking about science in particular. Ciceronianus said this:

Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions, strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence).
— Ciceronianus

I think it's reasonable to apply something similar to the atheistic worldview. — T Clark

Of course. I think that the most significant difference is that the ‘religious system’ relies on absolute authority. That’s a big difference because it allows leaders to lead without having to rationally justify anything. Indeed, to the delight of their leaders, many religious followers are decidedly anti-rational.

Atheists have no absolute authorities.

It doesn't have to be, but the aggressive type I am talking about, and that we often see here on the forum, usually is. — T Clark

By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is probably better described as a method.

I expect that a good number of conscientious Christians don't spend a lot of time arguing. — Wayfarer

Yes, that too sounds ordinary, and I imagine the same is true for conscientious atheists.

I don't pretend to know whether there are many theists who act as though they believe in everlasting life, since I have met so vanishingly few of them in relation to how many there presumably are in the world. — Janus

I expect that anyone who believes in life everlasting would not be materialistic, for instance, yet Christians, at least in the US, seem quite ordinary in that regard.

That's a rather sweeping statement! — Janus

I don't seem to have stirred up any disagreement.

As far as believers are concerned, God is not a social theory or internet talking point, but the most important fact about life. For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. — Wayfarer

Well, there's certainly no evidence that Theists have everlasting life, and they rarely behave as though they actually believe it.

Accelerated dragon variation.

Sicilian defense, promising to be an exciting game.

Thanks. Which is which of you?

@Hanover

Post the link, if you please. I’d like to watch, or review if it’s a fast one.

I recently learned a bit of Spanish history from reading a bunch of Isabel Allende books. A particularly touching part was when, after Franco took power, a shipload of Spanish asylum seekers arrived in Chile and, despite their fears, were met with dockside fanfare and open arms.

I think anyone who considers themselves a philosopher should know how to play chess, and should play well. — Mikie

True in my case. I don't consider myself a philosopher and don't play chess very well.

Did a YouTube search for my city and it’s supposedly the fourth most neighborly city in the nation, though I suspect a goodly amount of PR foolery in the presentation.

Wow, I thought you photoshopped it. :up:

Definitely anxiety producing.

Cinema Paradiso
The French Lieutenant's Woman
The Crying Game
Hamilton
A Fish Called Wanda
The Matrix
Alien
Bridesmaids
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Blade Runner

No one is responsible for tire dust. — Nils Loc

I’m responsible for the tire dust that my tires and I produce. :worry:

What about this: do what you want with your own stuff (and here this only includes stuff you’re using for yourself) so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. — Jamal

The problem, which I think Mikie eludes to, is that even the simple act of tossing a plastic straw in the trash may contribute to a negative result for others.

Where I live, society entitles me to do a lot of messed up shit with things I may own. I’m responsible for all of it.