Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Gonnagle on May 03, 2025, 03:33:29 PM
-
Dear Fellow Posters,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/videos/c0jpp8zzv83o
1. Confirmation Bias. Guilty yer Honour. Hey! it operate at an unconscious level, I am human ( no I really am 8) ).
2. Embrace Nuance and complexity. Well not to sure about nuance but I do like a simple life.
3.Intellectual humility. Never liked the word intellectual, always suspicious if someone tells me they are a intellectual :o
Humility
In simple terms, humility is being modest and not proud. It means acknowledging your limitations and not thinking you're better than others. It's about having a realistic view of yourself and not boasting about your achievements.
4. Intellectual empathy is the ability to understand and appreciate perspectives different from one's own, even if those perspectives challenge one's own beliefs or values. It involves stepping outside of one's own frame of reference to understand the reasoning and motivations behind another person's way of thinking. This skill is crucial for productive dialogue and can help identify hidden common ground.
5. Check your sources. Well yes this is very good advice, I will definitely take this one on board👍
6. Avoid fallacies. Oh I see Strawmen everywhere. :o
Now if anyone would like to include any more hints and tips, please, I am a empty book waiting to be filled with wisdom. 8)
Gonnagle.
-
I don't know about North of the border but here down in this part of these blighted isles nuance and complexity have left the room so to speak. Easy answers are only allowed no matter how unrealistic.
More generally I have only one tip, hold your loved ones close to protect them as best you can from the shitstorm heading our way.
I realise my points have little to do with critical thinking but like nuance and complexity, it is in very short supply around here.
-
I think we need to know why for some people critical thinking equals atheism.
-
I think we need to know why for some people critical thinking equals atheism.
Dear Vlad,
Come on! get with the programme, the Atheists are the best at critical thinking, they have had their confirmation bias removed ( small operation when you become a Atheist ) and don't forget the shoe leather ( some of them may be writing to the new Holy Father for recompense ) they have walked miles and miles in theists shoes ( I hear its a new Atheist exercise regime, keeps their steps up ) not forgetting Intellectual humility, every Atheist post on here drips humility ( the mods are upset about the clean up bills ) oh! and I am forgetting the nuances and complexities, there ain't no God >:( and last but not least they have all checked their sources, they have all read the Bible, Torah and Koran cover to cover, the Atheists are are all experts at critical thinking, so just leave it, leave it :o
Gonnagle.
PS: Critical thinkers my ass ;)
-
Dear Vlad,
Come on! get with the programme, the Atheists are the best at critical thinking, they have had their confirmation bias removed ( small operation when you become a Atheist ) and don't forget the shoe leather ( some of them may be writing to the new Holy Father for recompense ) they have walked miles and miles in theists shoes ( I hear its a new Atheist exercise regime, keeps their steps up ) not forgetting Intellectual humility, every Atheist post on here drips humility ( the mods are upset about the clean up bills ) oh! and I am forgetting the nuances and complexities, there ain't no God >:( and last but not least they have all checked their sources, they have all read the Bible, Torah and Koran cover to cover, the Atheists are are all experts at critical thinking, so just leave it, leave it :o
Gonnagle.
PS: Critical thinkers my ass ;)
Indeed, thank you for your timely admonition and corrective epistolary Mr G.
I think in the euphoria of receiving the gift of critical thinking (£10.99 at Waterstone's)some have forgotten to use it on themselves
-
Dear Vlad,
Come on! get with the programme, the Atheists are the best at critical thinking, they have had their confirmation bias removed ( small operation when you become a Atheist ) and don't forget the shoe leather ( some of them may be writing to the new Holy Father for recompense ) they have walked miles and miles in theists shoes ( I hear its a new Atheist exercise regime, keeps their steps up ) not forgetting Intellectual humility, every Atheist post on here drips humility ( the mods are upset about the clean up bills ) oh! and I am forgetting the nuances and complexities, there ain't no God >:( and last but not least they have all checked their sources, they have all read the Bible, Torah and Koran cover to cover, the Atheists are are all experts at critical thinking, so just leave it, leave it :o
Gonnagle.
PS: Critical thinkers my ass ;)
You sound very bitter. Relax, there probably isn't a God. Enjoy life.
Still, I can confirm one thing, my confirmation bias has not been removed, as every time I read a post like this it confirms my opinion of you religionist types. :P
-
...there ain't no God >:(...
Since you won't say what you mean by the word 'God' this is also meaningless coming from you, as is the term 'atheist'. You cannot rationally contribute to the debate about whether a God exists or not, if you won't say what you mean by the word.
All of what you say on the subject is just meaningless white noise. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
-
You sound very bitter. Relax, there probably isn't a God. Enjoy life.
Still, I can confirm one thing, my confirmation bias has not been removed, as every time I read a post like this it confirms my opinion of you religionist types. :P
Dear Arun,
Bitter! perplexed maybe but I am definitely one of those religionist types ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Since you won't say what you mean by the word 'God' this is also meaningless coming from you, as is the term 'atheist'. You cannot rationally contribute to the debate about whether a God exists or not, if you won't say what you mean by the word.
All of what you say on the subject is just meaningless white noise. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
Dear Stranger,
If you used this critical thinking that you keep throwing at everyone you would know as well as me that since man stepped out of the cave he has tried to define/describe God, never has and I don't think ever will, my very humble and also very weak definition, God is every best quality that any man can hope to rise too, the question I would ask you is, what are they?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Arun,
Bitter! perplexed maybe but I am definitely one of those religionist types ;)
Gonnagle.
What are you perplexed about?
-
What are you perplexed about?
Dear Maeght,
On this forum, the greatest of perplexities, this Atheism.
Gonnagle.
-
If you used this critical thinking that you keep throwing at everyone you would know as well as me that since man stepped out of the cave he has tried to define/describe God...
Nonsense. Early humans believed in all sorts of sprits and gods. The modern idea of monotheism is relatively recent.
...never has and I don't think ever will, my very humble and also very weak definition, God is every best quality that any man can hope to rise too...
What about women? Anyway, this suggests that your idea of God is merely human goodness, which clearly exists, and I don't deny the existence of humanity's 'best qualities', I just find it seriously weird to call them 'God'.
What now is an 'atheist' from your perspective? Somebody who does deny humanity's best qualities?
Where are these people?
-
Dear Maeght,
On this forum, the greatest of perplexities, this Atheism.
Gonnagle.
What perplexes you about atheism?
-
Dear Maeght,
On this forum, the greatest of perplexities, this Atheism.
Gonnagle.
I don't see why you find it difficult to grasp. Some of us are not convinced by the arguments and supposed facts that you religionists put forward.
I cannot believe in something I don't think exists. It is not complicated. Now you may claim that I need to undergo some sort of revelation or if I just try hard enough, study long enough, I will understand this thing called God. But, I just won't. It makes no sense to me.
As to religion that is practised by the likes of Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent Hinduism, on a personal level I have found them at times to be hateful and judgemental. Other religions I know less about and so won't comment on them, but as many adherents to each religion claim that theirs is the only true way, then clearly some religionists are lying or misguided.
Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy......
-
On this forum, the greatest of perplexities, this Atheism.
But you've pretty much just defined atheism as not existing. People who call themselves atheists generally deny the existence of 'supernatural' beings with magical powers, not human goodness.
As far as your personal idea of God (as just stated in #8 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905335#msg905335)) goes, we are all theists. I think your use of language is utterly bizarre and absurdly confusing, but the 'God' you say you believe in (humanity's best qualities) clearly exists, even if it's vague, subjective, and nebulous. For each person, their idea of humanity's best qualities will exist, if only as an aspiration.
Not the slightest idea why this is connected to religion, though. Why all the Christian mumbo jumbo? What's the point in all the worship and praying if God is just humanity's best qualities?
-
Dear Stranger and Arun,
Thank you :D not bad for a first attempt, was that bloody hard.
Now do not lie, please ( that is a very smiley please :) ) did I get you thinking!
Arun, a revelation, no I don't think so, study maybe, practice definitely, I am still practicing.
Stranger, humanity's best qualities, an aspiration!
But sincerely gentlemen, a very true sincerely, thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
My God clearly exists, does he/she/it? thank you again.
And I think we do agree on something, I to sometime wonder, why all the Christian mumbo jumbo!
Gonnagle.
-
But you've pretty much just defined atheism as not existing. People who call themselves atheists generally deny the existence of 'supernatural' beings with magical powers, not human goodness.
As far as your personal idea of God (as just stated in #8 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905335#msg905335)) goes, we are all theists. I think your use of language is utterly bizarre and absurdly confusing, but the 'God' you say you believe in (humanity's best qualities) clearly exists, even if it's vague, subjective, and nebulous. For each person, their idea of humanity's best qualities will exist, if only as an aspiration.
Not the slightest idea why this is connected to religion, though. Why all the Christian mumbo jumbo? What's the point in all the worship and praying if God is just humanity's best qualities?
Sounds like the 'theology' of Don "Sea of Faith" Cupitt. Which of course is just sexed up atheism.
-
Sounds like the 'theology' of Don "Sea of Faith" Cupitt. Which of course is just sexed up atheism.
OK Richard, here's your challenge.
"Sexup", as you quaintly put it, the following....
"Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God and gods"
*It was an effort to stay awake while typing that"
-
Sounds like the 'theology' of Don "Sea of Faith" Cupitt. Which of course is just sexed up atheism.
Well, exactly. Despite his declared perplexity, Gonnagle appears to be an atheist himself as he doesn't seem to believe that any God exists outside of the minds of humans...
-
Well, exactly. Despite his declared perplexity, Gonnagle appears to be an atheist himself as he doesn't seem to believe that any God exists outside of the minds of humans...
That's all very well but what is this "sexed up atheism" Dicky talks about?
-
That's all very well but what is this "sexed up atheism" Dicky talks about?
I haven't read his stuff for a while but I recall his interview in the Philosophy Bites series - from memory, he saw himself as a 'non-realist' Christian in that he found God/Christianity to be useful as metaphor without needing to believe that it was in any sense true of real.
Sounds to me like a bit of unnecessary window dressing - but then I prefer my atheism blunt and stark (just to annoy you, Vlad) :)
-
Dear Stranger,
My God clearly exists, does he/she/it? thank you again.
And I think we do agree on something, I to sometime wonder, why all the Christian mumbo jumbo!
Gonnagle.
Well, I'm perplexed now by that and to be honest, most of your posts. No idea what point you are making most of the time. Probably my problem but thought I'd just mention that.
-
I haven't read his stuff for a while but I recall his interview in the Philosophy Bites series - from memory, he saw himself as a 'non-realist' Christian in that he found God/Christianity to be useful as metaphor without needing to believe that it was in any sense true of real.
Sounds to me like a bit of unnecessary window dressing - but then I prefer my atheism blunt and stark (just to annoy you, Vlad) :)
Thanks for that, Gordon but I am left wondering if he and other...I suppose in honour of Dicky, we should call them "sexed up atheists, If they call God a metaphor, what is he a metaphor for?
-
Thanks for that, Gordon but I am left wondering if he and other...I suppose in honour of Dicky, we should call them "sexed up atheists, If they call God a metaphor, what is he a metaphor for?
To quote Cupitt
"I take the idea of God as something like a guiding spiritual ideal that you use to orientate your life by, God is our values, God symbolises the goal of spiritual life.
-
To quote Cupitt
"I take the idea of God as something like a guiding spiritual ideal that you use to orientate your life by, God is our values, God symbolises the goal of spiritual life.
With all due respect, isn't that a bit like playing football without any goals?
-
With all due respect, isn't that a bit like playing football without any goals?
Since I'm not a non realist Christian I have no idea. SteveH used to describe himself as such, I don't know if he still does, but he might explain better
I don't really care about the classifications in terms of non belief and differing types of belief. It's more where you are on the spectrum of prick and not a prick
-
Dear Thread,
You know!! ( done in the voice of the Vicar talking to his son :) ) this old forum ( and yes it is old ) sometimes is same old same old but every now and then it comes to life, a little spark, a jewel, a warm fuzzy exciting feeling comes over me ( no Sandra Bullock has still not replied to my emails ), anyway, God as a metaphor, God is all in the mind, I am now a sexed up Atheist ( can I just do the sexed up part please ) and just to add, God is real as real as you and me but only realer, much more realer, but thank you gentlemen, this theist versus Atheist nonsense just got interesting.
Gonnagle.
-
To quote Cupitt
"I take the idea of God as something like a guiding spiritual ideal that you use to orientate your life by, God is our values, God symbolises the goal of spiritual life.
Dear Sane,
I will take that, for starters, but there was a time when the best place to start was saying what God was not, but I will need to look it up again, there is a word or saying for it, anyway on topic, this critical thinking stuff, is it not just Socratic discourse, Socratic thinking, sounds like it to me, should be called Socratic critical thinking yes/no?
Gonnagle.
-
...and just to add, God is real as real as you and me but only realer, much more realer...
So now you're contradicting yourself. What a surprise!
Back to not knowing what the fuck you mean by 'God'. Ho-hum.
-
Dear Sane,
I will take that, for starters, but there was a time when the best place to start was saying what God was not, but I will need to look it up again, there is a word or saying for it, anyway on topic, this critical thinking stuff, is it not just Socratic discourse, Socratic thinking, sounds like it to me, should be called Socratic critical thinking yes/no?
Gonnagle.
I think the word you are thinking of is apophatic.
-
Dear Sane,
Cheers ;)
The Orthodox tradition of apophatic, or negative, theology holds that none of our concepts can properly be affirmed of God, who transcends all human concepts.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Thread,
You know!! ( done in the voice of the Vicar talking to his son :) ) this old forum ( and yes it is old ) sometimes is same old same old but every now and then it comes to life, a little spark, a jewel, a warm fuzzy exciting feeling comes over me ( no Sandra Bullock has still not replied to my emails ), anyway, God as a metaphor, God is all in the mind, I am now a sexed up Atheist ( can I just do the sexed up part please ) and just to add, God is real as real as you and me but only realer, much more realer, but thank you gentlemen, this theist versus Atheist nonsense just got interesting.
Gonnagle.
More word salad.
-
Dear Maeght,
Thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Maeght,
Thank you.
Gonnagle.
Anytime.
-
Dear Sane,
Cheers ;)
The Orthodox tradition of apophatic, or negative, theology holds that none of our concepts can properly be affirmed of God, who transcends all human concepts.
Gonnagle.
..... often called Via Negativa in Christian theology
St Thomas Aquinas [13th C Italian philosopher] We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.
Meister Eckhart [13th C German Dominican Theologian] There is no knowing what God is. Something we do know, namely, what God is not.
St. Augustine [4th C Bishop] For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a part of no small knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what he is not.
-
There is no knowing what God is.
How can one 'believe' in something without knowing what it is one believes in? Apophaticism would seem to suggest that 'belief in God' is an oxymoron. Most theology deals with concepts about God but if these are inadmissible then such belief would by definition constitute idolatry. "Every religion is idolatry" (Cornelius Castoriadis). Was Jung correct to suggest that one of the main functions of religion is to protect people from the experience of God? Whatever the unknowable God may be, perhaps the dreaded atheist is, albeit inadvertently, closer to it than the faithful, lost as they must be in idolatrous fancies.
-
Dear Thread,
A thread discussing God, what bliss :)
Gonnagle.
-
How can one 'believe' in something without knowing what it is one believes in? Apophaticism would seem to suggest that 'belief in God' is an oxymoron. Most theology deals with concepts about God but if these are inadmissible then such belief would by definition constitute idolatry. "Every religion is idolatry" (Cornelius Castoriadis). Was Jung correct to suggest that one of the main functions of religion is to protect people from the experience of God? Whatever the unknowable God may be, perhaps the dreaded atheist is, albeit inadvertently, closer to it than the faithful, lost as they must be in idolatrous fancies.
Dear Brambles,
The dreaded Atheists :o Are they dreaded :)
How can one 'believe' in something without knowing what it is
For me ( personally ) it starts with a man who changed the world for ever and ever Amen.
perhaps the dreaded atheist is, albeit inadvertently, closer to it than the faithful
Oh no!! Am I playing for the wrong team :)
lost as they must be in idolatrous fancies.
Aye! Atheists! All Heathens :P
Gonnagle.
-
A thread discussing [meaningless word I won't explain], what bliss :)
???
-
Dear Stranger, good evening to you.
You try to answer my question in Posts: 11374 and discuss these qualities/virtues and I will try to answer your question that you say I won't define/describe, deal?
Gonnagle.
-
You try to answer my question in Posts: 11374...
In what thread? This one only has 40 posts. And posts, plural? You only gave one number. I thought Searching for GOD but that's running at 52127 posts. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
-
Dear Stranger,
If you used this critical thinking that you keep throwing at everyone you would know as well as me that since man stepped out of the cave he has tried to define/describe God, never has and I don't think ever will, my very humble and also very weak definition, God is every best quality that any man can hope to rise too, the question I would ask you is, what are they?
Gonnagle.
Dear Stranger,
My question in bold.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger, good evening to you.
You try to answer my question in Posts: 11374 and discuss these qualities/virtues and I will try to answer your question that you say I won't define/describe, deal?
Gonnagle.
Gonners
Have a look at Aristotle's 'Virtue Ethics' - you might find that useful.
-
Gonners
Have a look at Aristotle's 'Virtue Ethics' - you might find that useful.
Dear Gordon,
Aristotle! I am more of a Socrates man but!
Virtues are acquired through habit and practice, not innate.
Is that right Mr Aristotle, what habits, what practices, whose habits and whose practices.
My habits and my practices start with ( only start mind you! ) one habit, one practice and that is the golden rule a man I know ( Our Lord Jesus Christ ) was asked a question, what is the greatest commandment but he didn't leave it there he went on to explain how you do the first commandment, by following the second greatest commandment.
Mathew 22 verses 37-40
Not a bad way to live, tough sometimes but very rewarding.
And I know what some of the replies will be, this rule is mentioned in many holy books and philosophies, and that is great, but I am a Christian✝️✝️✝️
Gonnagle.
PS: Good here ain't it ;)
-
Dear Gordon,
Aristotle! I am more of a Socrates man but!
Virtues are acquired through habit and practice, not innate.
Is that right Mr Aristotle, what habits, what practices, whose habits and whose practices.
My habits and my practices start with ( only start mind you! ) one habit, one practice and that is the golden rule a man I know ( Our Lord Jesus Christ ) was asked a question, what is the greatest commandment but he didn't leave it there he went on to explain how you do the first commandment, by following the second greatest commandment.
Mathew 22 verses 37-40
Not a bad way to live, tough sometimes but very rewarding.
And I know what some of the replies will be, this rule is mentioned in many holy books and philosophies, and that is great, but I am a Christian✝️✝️✝️
Gonnagle.
PS: Good here ain't it ;)
Why are you a Christian?
-
Dear Gordon,
Aristotle! I am more of a Socrates man but!
Virtues are acquired through habit and practice, not innate.
Is that right Mr Aristotle, what habits, what practices, whose habits and whose practices.
My habits and my practices start with ( only start mind you! ) one habit, one practice and that is the golden rule a man I know ( Our Lord Jesus Christ ) was asked a question, what is the greatest commandment but he didn't leave it there he went on to explain how you do the first commandment, by following the second greatest commandment.
Mathew 22 verses 37-40
Not a bad way to live, tough sometimes but very rewarding.
And I know what some of the replies will be, this rule is mentioned in many holy books and philosophies, and that is great, but I am a Christian✝️✝️✝️
Gonnagle.
PS: Good here ain't it ;)
Have a look at Aristotle's 'golden mean', which is a bit more helpful that the so-called, and of little value, 'golden rule': you see I may not want 'done unto me' what others might want 'done unto them.
So at full time it's Aristotle 1 Jesus 0.
-
Why are you a Christian?
Dear Maeght,
It's a bloody long list but here goes.
1. I was born at the centre of the Universe.
2. I was blessed by being born a jock.
3. My Mother and Father were Christian, but they did not have much time for religion, to busy putting food on the table.
4. I was sent to Sunday school but hated it, would much rather prefer playing football with my mates.
5. I was also blessed with an enquiring mind, favourite word WHY.
6. Being brought up in the centre of the Universe I was told to hate ( not by my parents ) members of the RC religion, as I grow older I asked why.
7. From number 6 I started asking what does God say about this nonsense.
8. I suppose that is where my love affair with all religions comes from.
9. The bad times in my life is when I walked away.
10. The good times, when I returned to him✝️
How's that for starters, call it indoctrination if you want, I am absolutely fine with that.
Gonnagle
PS: Sorry, 11, it works, I would thoroughly recommend it✝️
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
So at full time it's Aristotle 1 Jesus 0.
It is 22.30hrs, I am supposed to be relaxing, not having fits of laughter old friend but thank you ;D
I would reply, sorry the ref is taking it to the VAR, your goal may be disallowed :P not to familiar with Aristotle, will check him out tomorrow.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
This Aristotle guy, sounds very interesting.
The act of contemplation ( theoria ) is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder, and if in a better this compels it yet more.
And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God is that actuality, and Gods self dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belongs to God, for this is God.
According to Karen Armstrong Aristotle thought theologia discourse about God, was the highest philosophy because it was concerned with the highest mode of being, what I take from reading about this Aristotle is, the mere act of thinking about God brings you closer to God, sounds about right to me. ;)
This Golden Mean.
The "golden mean" is a philosophical concept, popularized by Aristotle, that suggests virtuous behavior lies in the balanced middle ground between two extremes: excess and deficiency. It's about finding the right balance in actions, emotions, and character traits to achieve moral excellence.
Sorry Gordon but the Ref has disallowed your goal, good call, for me the golden mean and the golden rule can walk happily hand in hand, so still 0-0 but it is only half time, lets see what the boys in the commentary box say ;D :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Maeght,
It's a bloody long list but here goes.
1. I was born at the centre of the Universe.
2. I was blessed by being born a jock.
3. My Mother and Father were Christian, but they did not have much time for religion, to busy putting food on the table.
4. I was sent to Sunday school but hated it, would much rather prefer playing football with my mates.
5. I was also blessed with an enquiring mind, favourite word WHY.
6. Being brought up in the centre of the Universe I was told to hate ( not by my parents ) members of the RC religion, as I grow older I asked why.
7. From number 6 I started asking what does God say about this nonsense.
8. I suppose that is where my love affair with all religions comes from.
9. The bad times in my life is when I walked away.
10. The good times, when I returned to him✝️
How's that for starters, call it indoctrination if you want, I am absolutely fine with that.
Gonnagle
PS: Sorry, 11, it works, I would thoroughly recommend it✝️
Gonnagle.
Is that actually just for starters or is that it - I grew up in a Christian environment and it I feel better when I believe?
-
My question in bold.
I already responded to that. "Every best quality that any man can hope to rise too" is a subjective and abstract idea. You asked "what are they" but, although there will undoubtably be some commonality, you're likely to get a different list from each person you ask. Off the top of my head, my list would probably emphasise empathy, compassion, generosity, and honesty. There'd probably much more to it if I considered it for longer, but what you will never get out of this is a being with a separate existence. God (in this sense) exists only in human minds, which would, as was pointed out, make you an atheist, or me a theist, depending on how we use language.
-
Dear Gordon,
This Aristotle guy, sounds very interesting.
The act of contemplation ( theoria ) is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder, and if in a better this compels it yet more.
And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God is that actuality, and Gods self dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belongs to God, for this is God.
According to Karen Armstrong Aristotle thought theologia discourse about God, was the highest philosophy because it was concerned with the highest mode of being, what I take from reading about this Aristotle is, the mere act of thinking about God brings you closer to God, sounds about right to me. ;)
This Golden Mean.
The "golden mean" is a philosophical concept, popularized by Aristotle, that suggests virtuous behavior lies in the balanced middle ground between two extremes: excess and deficiency. It's about finding the right balance in actions, emotions, and character traits to achieve moral excellence.
Sorry Gordon but the Ref has disallowed your goal, good call, for me the golden mean and the golden rule can walk happily hand in hand, so still 0-0 but it is only half time, lets see what the boys in the commentary box say ;D :P
Gonnagle.
Aristotle live in pre-Christian times and in a polytheistic culture, so religiosity was the norm, and was thought to be more of deist (seen quote below). I think his approach to ethics and morality, in the sense of developing 'good character' has it's attractions in that increasing maturity and experience have a role in acting ethically in proportion to the prevailing circumstances.
Aristotle believed in a prime mover, an unmoved and eternal being responsible for the motion and order of the universe. However, he did not believe in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs or responds to prayer and sacrifice.
In fact, Aristotle argued that humans create gods in their own image, projecting their own desires and beliefs onto the divine. He also believed that religion could be used as a tool for political control, as seen in his critique of tyranny’s use of religion.
These views suggest a level of skepticism towards traditional religious beliefs and practices, but they do not necessarily indicate a complete rejection of the existence of a divine being. Instead, Aristotle’s beliefs may align more closely with deism, which posits a distant and non-interventionist creator.
It’s also worth noting that Aristotle’s ideas were shaped by the cultural and philosophical context of ancient Greece, where polytheistic beliefs were prevalent. Thus, his views on the divine may not neatly fit into modern categories of theism or atheism.
https://www.deepthinkers.net/was-aristotle-an-atheist-the-truth-about-his-beliefs/#:~:text=Aristotle%E2%80%99s%20belief%20in
-
PS: Sorry, 11, it works, I would thoroughly recommend it✝️
I can see that in individual cases religion may work for some people by bringing peace of mind, solace, etc. but how do you go from that to the generalised statement above?
If you want to generalise, then so do I.
How are the very many prayers that are being sent up in Gaza currently being answered?
How is religion helping there? How is it working?
-
I already responded to that. "Every best quality that any man can hope to rise too" is a subjective and abstract idea. You asked "what are they" but, although there will undoubtably be some commonality, you're likely to get a different list from each person you ask. Off the top of my head, my list would probably emphasise empathy, compassion, generosity, and honesty. There'd probably much more to it if I considered it for longer, but what you will never get out of this is a being with a separate existence. God (in this sense) exists only in human minds, which would, as was pointed out, make you an atheist, or me a theist, depending on how we use language.
Dear Stranger,
Two parts of your post jump out at me, off the top of my head and probably
And to answer your question, my definition of God, Empathy, Compassion, generosity, honesty these to me are universal ideals/virtues, there is God, but they are not off the top of my head or probably✝️
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
Two parts of your post jump out at me, off the top of my head and probably
And to answer your question, my definition of God, Empathy, Compassion, generosity, honesty these to me are universal ideals/virtues, there is God, but they are not off the top of my head or probably✝️
Gonnagle.
So is God a thinking being or just a name you give to some human qualities?
-
Aristotle live in pre-Christian times and in a polytheistic culture, so religiosity was the norm, and was thought to be more of deist (seen quote below). I think his approach to ethics and morality, in the sense of developing 'good character' has it's attractions in that increasing maturity and experience have a role in acting ethically in proportion to the prevailing circumstances.
https://www.deepthinkers.net/was-aristotle-an-atheist-the-truth-about-his-beliefs/#:~:text=Aristotle%E2%80%99s%20belief%20in
Dear Gordon,
I will have a look at your deepthunkers link later ( sounds a bit big headed to me, oh I am a deep thinker ::) )
Anyway, in one of your quotes, Thus, his views on the divine may not neatly fit into modern categories of theism or atheism. and going back to the original point of this thread, nuances and complexities critical thinking, it is not a simple subject theism and atheism.
Gonnagle.
-
So is God a thinking being or just a name you give to some human qualities?
Dear Maeght,
I kind of get the feeling where old Vlad is coming from, questions questions questions, but a clue is in your post, human qualities
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Maeght,
I kind of get the feeling where old Vlad is coming from, questions questions questions, but a clue is in your post, human qualities
Gonnagle.
How is that an answer?
-
And to answer your question, my definition of God, Empathy, Compassion, generosity, honesty these to me are universal ideals/virtues, there is God
And another ambiguous statement. ::)
It's like you're being deliberately evasive, frightened of committing to what you think God is, which means you keep contradicting yourself.
Before you said (#8 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905335#msg905335)) "God is every best quality that any man can hope to rise too [sic]" (my emphasis), which means that God is ideas in people's minds, not a separate being. But then you seemed to contradict that with (#27 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905365#msg905365)) "God is real as real as you and me but only realer, much more realer".
Now we have the "...there is God". What are we to make of that? There is the influence or manifestation of God (in line with #27 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905365#msg905365)) or those things, in and of themselves, are literally God (in line with #8 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905335#msg905335))?
-
I kind of get the feeling where old Vlad is coming from, questions questions questions, but a clue is in your post, human qualities
More evasion... ::)
-
I can see that in individual cases religion may work for some people by bringing peace of mind, solace, etc. but how do you go from that to the generalised statement above?
If you want to generalise, then so do I.
How are the very many prayers that are being sent up in Gaza currently being answered?
How is religion helping there? How is it working?
Dear Arun,
Is this what the debate has sunk to, why does God not answer prayers, my answer would be, why does man not do what God wants, what does God want, go and read Strangers post.
In the words of a highly respected poster on here ( well I respect him :o ) For Fuck Sake
Gonnagle.
-
Your god created everything, is omniscient, omnipresent. It knows all that was, is and will be.
It created us, and yet allows us to destroy each other. Why? God knows all this suffering will happen, but still allows it to continue.
Oh yes, FOR FUCKS SAKE indeed. Your god is hateful, uncaring and destructive. You can't cherry pick the good bits and ignore the bad bits.
Sorry about that.
-
Your god created everything, is omniscient, omnipresent. It knows all that was, is and will be.
It created us, and yet allows us to destroy each other. Why? God knows all this suffering will happen, but still allows it to continue.
Oh yes, FOR FUCKS SAKE indeed. Your god is hateful, uncaring and destructive. You can't cherry pick the good bits and ignore the bad bits.
Sorry about that.
This isn't an atheist argument though is it?
This is a cruel god argument and as with all focus on the wrong doing of others leaves us open to view ourselves as the good guys.And a prelude to effectively exonerate the grossest of sins in God or the devil made me do it arguments
If we ar serious about this I think we need to think it through a bit more.
CS LEWIS I think said that now it was God in the Dock.
-
How is that an answer?
Dear Maeght,
Its the only answer I am going to give, so why don't you as a good Atheist go and do some critical thinking, you may surprise yourself, or, OR, become a Gonnagleologist :o
Gonnagle.
-
Its the only answer I am going to give...
In that case your use of the words 'God', 'theist', and 'atheist' will remain meaningless gibberish that everybody can simply disregard.
...so why don't you as a good Atheist go and do some critical thinking...
You could always try it yourself. You might clear up your confused doublethink regarding what 'God' is, you never know....
-
". The bad times in my life is when I walked away.
10. The good times, when I returned to him✝️"
That makes you sound like a 'fair-weather' Christian, Gonners.
It was in my worst time that I realised there was nothing there.
-
Dear Maeght,
Its the only answer I am going to give, so why don't you as a good Atheist go and do some critical thinking, you may surprise yourself, or, OR, become a Gonnagleologist :o
Gonnagle.
If that is your only answer I'd suggest you need to do some critical thinking. I've done it, maybe you should give it a try.
-
". The bad times in my life is when I walked away.
10. The good times, when I returned to him✝️"
That makes you sound like a 'fair-weather' Christian, Gonners.
It was in my worst time that I realised there was nothing there.
Dear Dicky,
No sorry, it makes me sound very human✝️
Gonnagle.
-
This isn't an atheist argument though is it?
This is a cruel god argument and as with all focus on the wrong doing of others leaves us open to view ourselves as the good guys.And a prelude to effectively exonerate the grossest of sins in God or the devil made me do it arguments
If we ar serious about this I think we need to think it through a bit more.
CS LEWIS I think said that now it was God in the Dock.
I never claimed it was an atheist argument. It is my argument. Gonners is into all this light and joy without considering the flipside in his assessment of god/religion/whatever the heck he's wibbling on about.
Critical thinking must surely include the thought that "hold on, God created all this and then threw in a get out clause (freewill) so that really bad things continue to happen while claiming to be a God of love". I would have thought that would give even the most ardent believer pause to reconsider matters, but no.....all quite happy with this god that allows unspeakable horrors.
It is all unutterable bollocks. I repeat FFS.
-
Dear Vlad,
You have done it again, upsetting the atheists, jolly bad form ;)
Dear Arun,
Light and joy :o more a quiet contentment✝️ Well except when I log on to this forum then I am FFSING all over the place, this forum is probably bad for my Karma❤️
Anyway, critical thinking, lets bring a bit of critical thinking into the problem of as you put it "unspeakable horrors in this world".
How much is the war in Ukraine and Gaza costing, where do you think Our Lord Jesus would rather that money be spent? I do not have to use much critical thinking to work this one out. This definitely makes me FFizz.
But the above problem is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mans inhumanity to man.
Gonnagle.
-
where do you think Our Lord Jesus would rather that money be spent?
Your god is omnipotent.
If they want to, they can direct the spending however they think best.
-
Your god is omnipotent.
If they want to, they can direct the spending however they think best.
Dear Arun,
I much prefer omnibenevolent.
Gonnagle.
-
I much prefer omnibenevolent.
And I'd much prefer it if there were proof of such.
-
You have done it again, upsetting the [meaningless undefined term], jolly bad form ;)
There you go again. If you won't say what God is, referring to people who don't accept it, is devoid of meaning...
-
Dear Vlad,
You have done it again, upsetting the atheists, jolly bad form ;)
Dear Arun,
Light and joy :o more a quiet contentment✝️ Well except when I log on to this forum then I am FFSING all over the place, this forum is probably bad for my Karma❤️
Anyway, critical thinking, lets bring a bit of critical thinking into the problem of as you put it "unspeakable horrors in this world".
How much is the war in Ukraine and Gaza costing, where do you think Our Lord Jesus would rather that money be spent? I do not have to use much critical thinking to work this one out. This definitely makes me FFizz.
But the above problem is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mans inhumanity to man.
Gonnagle.
Have to say - if the 'God' Christians worship is indeed an 'omni God', as some of them believe, then surely it could stop these conflicts in an instant if it wanted to.
The 'Problem of Evil' indicates that either there is no 'omni God', or there is one but it doesn't give a fuck: why anyone would worship that beats me.
-
I never claimed it was an atheist argument. It is my argument. Gonners is into all this light and joy without considering the flipside in his assessment of god/religion/whatever the heck he's wibbling on about.
First of, I don’t share your view. If there is a problem, it’s with what God has allowed or conceded. That is the puzzle. Sure you can take the hard positional patriarchal view of certain religions or atheists but we forget the New Testament If you do that.
Secondly why should I take your view and not Gonnagle’s? Have you suffered more than he has or have you just come out more bitter in the end?
Critical thinking must surely include the thought that "hold on, God created all this and then threw in a get out clause (freewill) so that really bad things continue to happen while claiming to be a God of love". I would have thought that would give even the most ardent believer pause to reconsider matters, but no.....all quite happy with this god that allows unspeakable horrors.
Get out clause? Get out from what? What can be more morally final than the most moral thing? The most moral thing being what many seek. As John Gray, the atheist philosopher has said this has not been found in humanity or is likely to If that’s where you are trying to find it. Nor can we say humanity is progressing and getting better UNLESS there is a valid comparison.
Have you been critical enough on yourself in your search for the morally real, most moral entity?
-
Have to say - if the 'God' Christians worship is indeed an 'omni God', as some of them believe, then surely it could stop these conflicts in an instant if it wanted to.
The 'Problem of Evil' indicates that either there is no 'omni God', or there is one but it doesn't give a fuck: why anyone would worship that beats me.
But there is also a problem for you in the notion of Omnibenevolence. Who gets to decide what that is? Mine includes freewill, and God’s gift of himself in Jesus. What does yours include and how can it be achieved without unforeseen consequences?
-
First of, I don’t share your view. If there is a problem, it’s with what God has allowed or conceded. That is the puzzle.
A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.
Sure you can take the hard positional patriarchal view of certain religions or atheists...
Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?
...but we forget the New Testament If you do that.
The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.
Secondly why should I take your view and not Gonnagle’s?
By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not... (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
What can be more morally final than the most moral thing? The most moral thing being what many seek. As John Gray, the atheist philosopher has said this has not been found in humanity or is likely to If that’s where you are trying to find it. Nor can we say humanity is progressing and getting better UNLESS there is a valid comparison.
Have you been critical enough on yourself in your search for the morally real, most moral entity?
The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.
But there is also a problem for you in the notion of Omnibenevolence. Who gets to decide what that is? Mine includes freewill, and God’s gift of himself in Jesus.
Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair. ::)
-
A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.
Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?
The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.
By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not... (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.
Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair. ::)
Another day, another Shit flood from Big S.
-
A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.
Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?
The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.
By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not... (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.
Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair. ::)
Our whole legal system, belief in rights is based on the idea of freedom.
If there is no moral reality what right do you think you have calling anyone unjust and then thinking you are correct?Answer no warrant at all.
-
A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.
If the world is designed then the designer must be amoral. Explain how you get from a to b here? Where does morality come from then?
Patriarchal?
Masculine and ruling some might say tyrannical. For some God is simultaneously tyrranical and weak depending on what suits their argument at the time
The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.
The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.
And you hoped to win this argument with a stream of subjective ideas vis, idiotic, foolish etc.
-
Have to say - if the 'God' Christians worship is indeed an 'omni God', as some of them believe, then surely it could stop these conflicts in an instant if it wanted to.
The 'Problem of Evil' indicates that either there is no 'omni God', or there is one but it doesn't give a fuck: why anyone would worship that beats me.
Dear Gordon,
The thread is Critical thinking and the masters of all critical thinking are the Atheists, so put your critical thinking hat on and remember you have to see the other fellows point of view, you need to walk a mile in Gods shoes.
Gonnagle.
PS: Bonus points will be awarded for showing your working.
PS PS: There is no time limit on this exam.
-
Dear Gordon,
The thread is Critical thinking and the masters of all critical thinking are the Atheists, so put your critical thinking hat on and remember you have to see the other fellows point of view, you need to walk a mile in Gods shoes.
Gonnagle.
PS: Bonus points will be awarded for showing your working.
PS PS: There is no time limit on this exam.
Gonners
I can certainly look at the other fellow's point of view: in this context that Christianity should be taken seriously, and that the NT anecdotes about 'Jesus' should be seen as especially profound or significant.
Having done that I can conclude that core claims of Christianity (that Jesus was divine, came back from the dead, could perform miracles, that he is still available to have a relationship with and is some kind of 'saviour') and conclude that these aspects are fallacious and/or incoherent, and that the lack of provenance regarding the NT anecdotes means that there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies that cannot be, from this distance, ever resolved, so that what Jesus is reported to have actually said can reasonably be doubted - so I can simply dismiss this fellow's point of view, however sincerely he holds it, as not being a serious proposition.
On that basis, my critical appraisal is that Christianity is no more than codified nonsense, for the reasons noted above. I do understand that some people take it seriously, find it profound or like the 'window dressing' that surrounds it, but since I can see no good reasons or compelling evidence to take it seriously in the first place then I could never 'walk in their shoes' - for even a single step.
-
The thread is Critical thinking and the masters of all critical thinking are the [meaningless gibberish], so put your critical thinking hat on and remember you have to see the other fellows point of view, you need to walk a mile in [meaningless gibberish] shoes.
You're not making any sense because you won't say what God refers to....
-
Gonners
I can certainly look at the other fellow's point of view: in this context that Christianity should be taken seriously, and that the NT anecdotes about 'Jesus' should be seen as especially profound or significant.
Having done that I can conclude that core claims of Christianity (that Jesus was divine, came back from the dead, could perform miracles, that he is still available to have a relationship with and is some kind of 'saviour') and conclude that these aspects are fallacious and/or incoherent, and that the lack of provenance regarding the NT anecdotes means that there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies that cannot be, from this distance, ever resolved, so that what Jesus is reported to have actually said can reasonably be doubted - so I can simply dismiss this fellow's point of view, however sincerely he holds it, as not being a serious proposition.
On that basis, my critical appraisal is that Christianity is no more than codified nonsense, for the reasons noted above. I do understand that some people take it seriously, find it profound or like the 'window dressing' that surrounds it, but since I can see no good reasons or compelling evidence to take it seriously in the first place then I could never 'walk in their shoes' - for even a single step.
Dear Gordon,
there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies
Correct.
Who wrote the Bible, man, another way of describing man, homo Sapiens, and yet another way is homo narrans, we love to tell a story, but if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck.
Gonnagle.
-
Our whole legal system, belief in rights is based on the idea of freedom.
Doesn't change the logic that any freedom with respect to a being that has full control over our entire nature, nurture, and experience, is impossible.
If there is no moral reality what right do you think you have calling anyone unjust and then thinking you are correct?Answer no warrant at all.
Morality is based on empathy and compassion. Whereas exactly how that is interpreted is subjective, we can clearly see that any designer of the world had precious little of either. We could also apply what most Christians see as moral to the a designer of this world, and to the God described in the bible, for that matter, and see that it is manifestly unjust in those terms.
If the world is designed then the designer must be amoral. Explain how you get from a to b here?
This is just the problem of evil, and the endless suffering caused by nature itself.
Masculine and ruling some might say tyrannical.
I know what the word means, I just don't see what the hell it has to do with atheists...
And you hoped to win this argument with a stream of subjective ideas vis, idiotic, foolish etc.
We've discussed the absurdity of "Jesus dying for our sins" nonsense before. It's idiotic. God punishes the whole of creation for somebody eating the wrong fruit (whatever you think that represents), so we are all incapable of living up to God's standard, so we then stand in judgement for being punished and being as God made us. Then, God decides that it can all be made right again if it cosplays a human for a while, makes sure he's tortured to death, but not real death because he pops up again after only three days, but this magically makes it alright to forgive us for being how it made us, but only if we believe this crazy insane nonsense....
-
Dear Gordon,
there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies
Correct.
Who wrote the Bible, man, another way of describing man, homo Sapiens, and yet another way is homo narrans, we love to tell a story, but if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck.
Gonnagle.
Gonners
If you are reading it as metaphor, or allegory or just plain illustrative storytelling then errors don't matter since, in that sense, the text is implicitly fictional. If read that way then I suppose there is 'meaning' to be found (as is the case in lots of literary prose that appeals to specific readers).
However, if the text is presumed to be accurate documentary history, and some Christians think it is, then that is a different matter entirely and the unaddressed risks of errors or lies fundamentally undermines any presumption of it being history.
-
Doesn't change the logic that any freedom with respect to a being that has full control over our entire nature, nurture, and experience, is impossible.
If you think logic is on your side, you know what to do, but to reckon, as you seem to that an omnipotent being has to do something seems rather odd. To say he cannot allow any freedoms anywhere comes into this. As always there is on this forum the arrogant delusion that though the free will/ determinism debate rages in the world, at Religionethics we atheists, we few, we happy band, put it to bed years ago.
-
If you think logic is on your side, you know what to do...
Do you really need the argument again!? Ho-hum. If the exact state of your mind, and the exact state of everything it is perceiving at the moment of a choice, does not fully determine the outcome, then there can be no reason at all for one possible outcome rather than the others. Something that happens for no reason is random and randomness cannot make us more free.
This makes very little difference from a human point of view, because the details are way beyond our ability to access, but to an omniscient, omnipotent creator, it would be obvious what everyone will choose given the way it chose to set up the world. That is, it would effectively make all our choices for us.
...but to reckon, as you seem to that an omnipotent being has to do something seems rather odd. To say he cannot allow any freedoms anywhere comes into this.
It's a question of logic. If you think your God can do the logically impossible (like draw a square circle), then you'd have a point, otherwise not.
As always there is on this forum the arrogant delusion that though the free will/ determinism debate rages in the world, at Religionethics we atheists, we few, we happy band, put it to bed years ago.
I've read an awful lot about this but never seen an effective counterargument, but do feel free to post one...
-
Gonners
If you are reading it as metaphor, or allegory or just plain illustrative storytelling then errors don't matter since, in that sense, the text is implicitly fictional. If read that way then I suppose there is 'meaning' to be found (as is the case in lots of literary prose that appeals to specific readers).
However, if the text is presumed to be accurate documentary history, and some Christians think it is, then that is a different matter entirely and the unaddressed risks of errors or lies fundamentally undermines any presumption of it being history.
Dear Gordon,
Correct, some Christians👍but the Holy Bible never was, never has been, never will be a accurate documentary history but ( and its a bloody big but ) your good self and quite a number of other atheists on this forum fall into the same category as the "some Christians" you are fundies, fundamental Atheists, so I will be adding that to my growing list of the different atheistic sects, committed Atheist, authentic Atheist, positive atheist, negative atheist, agnostic atheist :o and now fundie atheists.
Gonnagle.
PS: Sorry New atheists, but I think they are just fundamental atheists.
-
Dear Gordon,
Correct, some [meaningless gibberish]👍but the Holy Bible never was, never has been, never will be a accurate documentary history but ( and its a bloody big but ) your good self and quite a number of other [meaningless gibberish] on this forum fall into the same category as the "some [meaningless gibberish]" you are fundies, fundamental [meaningless gibberish], so I will be adding that to my growing list of the different [meaningless gibberish] sects, committed [meaningless gibberish], authentic [meaningless gibberish], positive [meaningless gibberish], negative [meaningless gibberish], agnostic [meaningless gibberish] :o and now fundie [meaningless gibberish].
Gonnagle.
PS: Sorry New [meaningless gibberish], but I think they are just fundamental [meaningless gibberish].
No meaning for the word 'God' ⟺ no meaning for 'atheist' or 'Christian'...
Actually "fundamental atheists" is pretty much gibberish without your absurd refusal to say what 'God' refers to. We can only deal with the ideas of God with which we are presented. If that's fundamentalist, then that's what we'll deal with, if not, then not.
In your case, we have no clue what you mean by 'God' because you have point-blank refused to clarify, so all you say on the subject is meaningless.
-
Dear Gordon,
Correct, some Christians👍but the Holy Bible never was, never has been, never will be a accurate documentary history but ( and its a bloody big but ) your good self and quite a number of other atheists on this forum fall into the same category as the "some Christians" you are fundies, fundamental Atheists, so I will be adding that to my growing list of the different atheistic sects, committed Atheist, authentic Atheist, positive atheist, negative atheist, agnostic atheist :o and now fundie atheists.
Gonnagle.
PS: Sorry New atheists, but I think they are just fundamental atheists.
I don't think there are these differences - atheism reduces to not holding beliefs about the existence of divine/supernatural agents/gods.
Perhaps you are picking up on how assertively that position is being expressed.
-
Dear Gordon,
there are risks involving copying errors, mistakes and outright lies
Correct.
Who wrote the Bible, man, another way of describing man, homo Sapiens, and yet another way is homo narrans, we love to tell a story, but if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck.
Gonnagle.
"if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck."
Bit below the belt to Gordon that, Gonners. Gordon has rightly pointed out that indeed many Christians do read the Bible as being accurate documentary history. And the history of that is long and complex. All the mainstream branches of Christianity had for centuries regarded the Bible as sacrosanct, and they didn't like anyone to question its contents in any way - the penalties for doing so being extreme (this sentiment probably arose originally from a couple of texts, one from John (Your word is truth) and another from one of the spurious epistles to Timothy ("All scripture is inspired of God") - which is probably mistranslated anyway).
It wasn't until Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768. Born and died in Hamburg) attempted a critical appraisal of the scriptures that any real attempt was made to see them as purely human documents, and therefore probably full of errors and
contradictions of all kinds. But the poor bugger was so terrified of religious reprisals to his findings that he never dared to publish these particular thoughts in his lifetime. He started off what is known as the period of "Higher Criticism" (that doesn't mean 'better'). David Friedrich Strauss went further in his "Life of Jesus critically examined"; he did publish, with disastrous consequences to his career.
The Yanks didn't like all this "Higher Criticism" - they preferred the Old Time Religion, and in direct opposition to the European research, they doubled down on the idea of absolute Biblical truth, and gave rise to the pestilence of FUNDAMENTALISM*, which still plagues the world to this day, with the idea of an absolutely inerrant Bible.
As a consequence of this, I'd consider it the duty for all responsible people to expose this nonsense at every opportunity, and then perhaps all of us will be able to read and respect the Bible for its many virtues (which probably outweigh the horrors described therein).
*John Shelby Spong wrote a rather fine book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". Half the Yankee believers think he's the Antichrist.
-
No meaning for the word 'God' ⟺ no meaning for 'atheist' or 'Christian'...
Actually "fundamental atheists" is pretty much gibberish without your absurd refusal to say what 'God' refers to. We can only deal with the ideas of God with which we are presented. If that's fundamentalist, then that's what we'll deal with, if not, then not.
In your case, we have no clue what you mean by 'God' because you have point-blank refused to clarify, so all you say on the subject is meaningless.
Dear Stranger,
Now it might just be me ( maybe I am being a bit precious ) but I can't help thinking that you are slightly angry about something, just a feeling❤️
Gonnagle.
-
"if the only way you read the book is looking for errors, good luck."
Bit below the belt to Gordon that, Gonners. Gordon has rightly pointed out that indeed many Christians do read the Bible as being accurate documentary history. And the history of that is long and complex. All the mainstream branches of Christianity had for centuries regarded the Bible as sacrosanct, and they didn't like anyone to question its contents in any way - the penalties for doing so being extreme (this sentiment probably arose originally from a couple of texts, one from John (Your word is truth) and another from one of the spurious epistles to Timothy ("All scripture is inspired of God") - which is probably mistranslated anyway).
It wasn't until Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768. Born and died in Hamburg) attempted a critical appraisal of the scriptures that any real attempt was made to see them as purely human documents, and therefore probably full of errors and
contradictions of all kinds. But the poor bugger was so terrified of religious reprisals to his findings that he never dared to publish these particular thoughts in his lifetime. He started off what is known as the period of "Higher Criticism" (that doesn't mean 'better'). David Friedrich Strauss went further in his "Life of Jesus critically examined"; he did publish, with disastrous consequences to his career.
The Yanks didn't like all this "Higher Criticism" - they preferred the Old Time Religion, and in direct opposition to the European research, they doubled down on the idea of absolute Biblical truth, and gave rise to the pestilence of FUNDAMENTALISM*, which still plagues the world to this day, with the idea of an absolutely inerrant Bible.
As a consequence of this, I'd consider it the duty for all responsible people to expose this nonsense at every opportunity, and then perhaps all of us will be able to read and respect the Bible for its many virtues (which probably outweigh the horrors described therein).
*John Shelby Spong wrote a rather fine book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". Half the Yankee believers think he's the Antichrist.
Dear Dicky,
Cheers, thank you for helping the debate along, can't fault your findings, very interesting.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
Now it might just be me ( maybe I am being a bit precious ) but I can't help thinking that you are slightly angry about something, just a feeling❤️
Gonnagle.
No, I just find people who say they believe something and then refuse all attempts to clarify what it actually is that they believe in, somewhat bizarre and not a little amusing.
I'm just illustrating the consequences of your reticence about what you believe on the things you then say. It literally does render most of it meaningless. I don't get why you (apparently) can't see that.
But whatever, you carry on and I'll go on pointing it out until I get bored or you decide to actually start posting something that makes coherent sense....
-
A puzzle!? If this world is a design, then the designer is amoral, at the very best. If it even notices and cares about humans and other animals, it is a sadistic monster.
Patriarchal? What the fuck are you wittering about?
The NT just makes things worse. The idiotic, foolish, unjust, bizarre, sadomasochistic nonsense of the crucifixion.
By assessing the argument. Gonnagle doesn't even seem to know if God refers to a thinking being or not... (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
The 'most moral thing' is a subjective ideal.
Freewill is logically impossible with respect to an omniscient omnipotent creator, and the 'gift of Jesus' is God being insanely unjust and unfair. ::)
Sorry, can't do an in depth on this at the moment but straight of the bat...
Firstly, your fixation with everything having to have an external cause.
Secondly, the contradiction between that and the suspension of the principle of sufficient reason it actually entails, and thirdly your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".
-
Sorry, can't do an in depth on this at the moment but straight of the bat...
Firstly, your fixation with everything having to have an external cause.
Secondly, the contradiction between that and the suspension of the principle of sufficient reason it actually entails, and thirdly your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".
Surely it is "Knowing something" and "allowing something"
-
Surely it is "Knowing something" and "allowing something"
No I think the proposal is God Knows so he causes. That is problematic.
"Allowing" suggests granting freedom which Stranger is actually arguing doesn't exist.
-
Firstly, your fixation with everything having to have an external cause.
I'm seriously struggling to relate this comment to anything I said in the post you quoted. Maybe you're on about the free will argument? But that doesn't make much sense either. No idea what you're on about.
Secondly, the contradiction between that and the suspension of the principle of sufficient reason it actually entails...
What!? Nothing of what I said here relates to the PSR.
...and thirdly your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".
From the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, what't the difference? It would be faced with the choice of making the world like X, in which case everybody's choices would be the fully understood and known consequences, or making it another way with a different set of people and their choices.
The act of creation would directly cause all the consequences.
Even if it introduced randomness, it would know the outcomes, and you can hardly hold people responsible for randomness any more than you can for making the world in such and such a way.
-
"Allowing" suggests granting freedom which Stranger is actually arguing doesn't exist.
In any sense that would make a choice not determined and not random, it's logically self-contradictory.
-
No I think the proposal is God Knows so he causes. That is problematic.
"Allowing" suggests granting freedom which Stranger is actually arguing doesn't exist.
Okay. Alternatively then, creating a world where God knows that the 'events' will happen when he could have created it differently.
-
The act of creation would directly cause all the consequences.
Not if the creator creates the gift of free will.
-
Not if the creator creates the gift of free will.
Along with a few square circles, maybe?
As I'm sure I've said to you countless times before, if you want to claim your God can do things that are logically impossible (self-contradictory), then there can be 'free will' in the way you want, otherwise not.
-
Along with a few square circles, maybe?
As I'm sure I've said to you countless times before, if you want to claim your God can do things that are logically impossible (self-contradictory), then there can be 'free will' in the way you want, otherwise not.
It is your claim that the human ability to have conscious freedom to have control of their own thought processes is a logical impossibility. I claim it is the reality which defines us as a human being, the reality which allows us to contemplate and try to make sense of our own existence, the reality which allows us to consciously accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, or the reality which enables us to think of reasons to reject Jesus and try to convince ourselves that we are all just an unavoidable consequence of reactions to past events.
-
It is your claim that the human ability to have conscious freedom to have control of their own thought processes is a logical impossibility. I claim it is the reality which defines us as a human being, the reality which allows us to contemplate and try to make sense of our own existence, the reality which allows us to consciously accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, or the reality which enables us to think of reasons to reject Jesus and try to convince ourselves that we are all just an unavoidable consequence of reactions to past events.
I need no convincing that Christianly, as it stands, is theobollocks - and you have just very ably demonstrated why I think that.
-
It is your claim that the human ability to have conscious freedom to have control of their own thought processes is a logical impossibility.
It's not a claim, it's a logical argument. One that you have never once managed to find a flaw in, despite your numerous unjustified (and hence somewhat dishonest) accusations that it is actually flawed.
I claim it is the reality which defines us as a human being, the reality which allows us to contemplate and try to make sense of our own existence, the reality which allows us to consciously accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, or the reality which enables us to think of reasons to reject Jesus and try to convince ourselves that we are all just an unavoidable consequence of reactions to past events.
And this is just some empty unjustified claims that you have never once managed to get close to supporting with reasoning or evidence... ::)
It also has bugger all to do with 'rejecting Jesus'. For all practical purposes, we have free will in the sense we ca do as we wish. The reason for rejecting your Jesus fairytale is that it's absurd (some examples in #86 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22623.msg905478#msg905478)).
-
Along with a few square circles, maybe?
Category Error. Can you spot why free will is not in the same category as square circles. Poor analogy. Secondly although there is universal agreement that you can’t have Squarecircles. This is not settled i n the case of Freewill and determinism. Freewill on something’s part, Whether it’s God or some overarching law of nature removes the infinite regress of reasons. As I'm sure I've said to you countless times before, if you want to claim your God can do things that are logically impossible (self-contradictory), then there can be 'free will' in the way you want, otherwise not.
Theologically speaking, Free Will is granted in the moral choice and ultimately the choice of whether to accept God or reject him. In conclusion, it has not been concluded that there is only determinism and randomness since in the context of something or nothing there can be no randomness and in determinism an infinite regress never answers the question of what is it which ultimately determines.
If we accept that there is something that is the ultimate determiner then we cannot safely deny the free ability to determine in something else.
-
Okay. Alternatively then, creating a world where God knows that the 'events' will happen when he could have created it differently.
First of all, We partially are in control of the way the world is, so although we can imagine better alternative worlds, I think there is a proven shortfall about what we envisage and how it always seems to turn out down the line. It looks like “we know better than God” isn’t actually a thing.
-
First of all, We partially are in control of the way the world is, so although we can imagine better alternative worlds, I think there is a proven shortfall about what we envisage and how it always seems to turn out down the line. It looks like “we know better than God” isn’t actually a thing.
Can't see that that has anything to do with what I said. Can you explain how it does?
-
Can't see that that has anything to do with what I said. Can you explain how it does?
You seem assume in what you wrote that God could have made a better world. That’s how I read it. Further, God might well have made universes with different outcomes but the same laws or even other universes with different laws. His will would be free to do so and if he has Freewill, by what process could he be denied giving freedoms to anything in his ambit?
-
You seem assume in what you wrote that God could have made a better world. That’s how I read it. Further, God might well have made universes with different outcomes but the same laws or even other universes with different laws. His will would be free to and if he has Freewill, by what process could he be denied giving freedoms to anything in his a,bit?
Did you read that back to yourself before you posted?
This is about you saying 'your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".'
The point is that if God created a world knowing that certain things would happen in that world then is that really different from creating those things/making them happen?
-
Did you read that back to yourself before you posted?
This is about you saying 'your conflation/ confusion of "Knowing something" and "causing something".'
The point is that if God created a world knowing that certain things would happen in that world then is that really different from creating those things/making them happen?
Yes, because he’s not actually causing it. Theologically free will is a moral thing, the ultimate purpose of which is to freely love.
Stranger argues determination and randomness, I argue determinism, Freewill and randomness(a type of freedom) but others would disagree with both of us and argue pure determinism.
-
Yes, because he’s not actually causing it. Theologically free will is a moral thing, the ultimate purpose of which is to freely love.
Stranger argues determination and randomness, I argue determinism, Freewill and randomness(a type of freedom) but others would disagree with both of us and argue pure determinism.
Setting up a situation where you know something will happen sounds like causing something to me.
If a world is created where God knows someone will do a certain thing, and God could have created a different world where that person wouldn't have done that thing, is that really free will?
-
Setting up a situation where you know something will happen sounds like causing something to me.
If a world is created where God knows someone will do a certain thing, and God could have created a different world where that person wouldn't have done that thing, is that really free will?
I’m with Frankie Boyle here in saying that this type of argument is like getting a bad bit of Chicken at KFC and blaming Colonel Sanders.....or blaming your parents.
-
I’m with Frankie Boyle here in saying that this type of argument is like getting a bad bit of Chicken at KFC and blaming Colonel Sanders.....or blaming your parents.
That doesn't answer the point at all.
-
I need no convincing that Christianly, as it stands, is theobollocks - and you have just very ably demonstrated why I think that.
Dear Gordon, Good Morning Sir,
Theobollocks, nice, very nice >:(
And here was me having a little pang of regret when a poster on this very thread accused me of, well! not being a very nice chap, now I may be wrong but my impression of this forum is gloves off, but that is just my own personal opinion, but theobollocks when describing a mans faith, probably me just being slightly precious again❤️
Anyway :) onwards and upwards or in this case just slightly left at the God Dodgers corner ( not nice Gonnagle, not nice at all ) this free will debate has me all of a tizzy, why is it so important, my Christianity ( theobllocks ) is built on words such as Faith, Trust, Belief and yes I will admit sometimes doubt, so lets talk free will, what's the big issue.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
Now here is a man telling me that the whole debate is still not decided, the question of free will is not such a open and shut case, me personally I think I have freewill ( think ) will I have a nice healthy breakfast, bollocks :P there is a lovely fry up with my name on it just waiting, so quite obviously I don't have freewill, no just me pandering to my more basic instincts.
So lets talk freewill, to end, if I am part of Gods master plan then so be it, I have Faith, trust and belief, unsure about this freewill, enlighten me✝️
Gonnagle.
-
That doesn't answer the point at all.
I think you are suggesting it’s like someone building a bridge knowing it will fall down but I’m saying it’s like someone building a bridge knowing someone could knock it down.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
A must read for people on this thread
-
Dear Gordon, Good Morning Sir,
Theobollocks, nice, very nice >:(
And here was me having a little pang of regret when a poster on this very thread accused me of, well! not being a very nice chap, now I may be wrong but my impression of this forum is gloves off, but that is just my own personal opinion, but theobollocks when describing a mans faith, probably me just being slightly precious again❤️
Anyway :) onwards and upwards or in this case just slightly left at the God Dodgers corner ( not nice Gonnagle, not nice at all ) this free will debate has me all of a tizzy, why is it so important, my Christianity ( theobllocks ) is built on words such as Faith, Trust, Belief and yes I will admit sometimes doubt, so lets talk free will, what's the big issue.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
Now here is a man telling me that the whole debate is still not decided, the question of free will is not such a open and shut case, me personally I think I have freewill ( think ) will I have a nice healthy breakfast, bollocks :P there is a lovely fry up with my name on it just waiting, so quite obviously I don't have freewill, no just me pandering to my more basic instincts.
So lets talk freewill, to end, if I am part of Gods master plan then so be it, I have Faith, trust and belief, unsure about this freewill, enlighten me✝️
Gonnagle.
Have just had a quick look at that link (don't have much time at present - moving house in just over 2 weeks) - and I think he is conflating determinism and predeterminism.
I'd say that we have agency, and in everyday terms it feels like 'free will', but it isn't since we are not even free from our own biases, experiences or prevailing circumstances. If I truly had 'free will' then I would be free to either become an Christian, decide that mayonnaise was lovely stuff or that dancing was truly entertaining - but no matter how 'free' I think I am, I can't simply 'choose' to change my outlook as regards these matters.
Schopenhauer famously said along the lines of 'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants', which sounds about right to me: I can't choose my own inherent inclinations at will: all I can really do is react (by avoiding what I reject and enacting what I want) so I'm not truly 'free' even if most of the time it feels that I am.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
A must read for people on this thread
Dear Vlad,
A must read :o that's a hell of a lot of must read but thank you, I will peruse at my leisure ( and what's with the new name, Free Willy :P ) anyway God has miraculously sent Glasgow a beautiful sunny day, so I am off out to enjoy it, oh and I think Mr Burns will like who I am going to visit, an auld Tim who scholars think our Wallace and Bruce would just have been a footnote in history without this man, The Warrior Bishop.
And my advice to others on this forum, get aff this stupid forum and get out and enjoy Gods wonderful gift✝️
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
Moving house, at your age, you are a glutton for punishment :o :P
Gonnagle.
-
I think you are suggesting it’s like someone building a bridge knowing it will fall down but I’m saying it’s like someone building a bridge knowing someone could knock it down.
But I thought God was supposed to know everything that is going to happen. No? If so then there is no 'could'.
-
Category Error. Can you spot why free will is not in the same category as square circles.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) The only relevant category is 'things that are self-contradictory'.
Secondly although there is universal agreement that you can’t have Squarecircles. This is not settled i n the case of Freewill and determinism.
Then argue the case.
Freewill on something’s part, Whether it’s God or some overarching law of nature removes the infinite regress of reasons.
What infinite regress of reasons are you speaking of? Just saying "Freewill on something’s part" is just a phrase with no logical significance.
In conclusion, it has not been concluded that there is only determinism and randomness...
Conclusion? Where was the substance? What else can there be but determinism and randomness?
...since in the context of something or nothing there can be no randomness and in determinism an infinite regress never answers the question of what is it which ultimately determines.
If we accept that there is something that is the ultimate determiner then we cannot safely deny the free ability to determine in something else.
You seem to be off at some sort of tangent about why stuff exists again. No idea why you think it relevant. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
-
You seem assume in what you wrote that God could have made a better world. That’s how I read it. Further, God might well have made universes with different outcomes but the same laws or even other universes with different laws. His will would be free to do so and if he has Freewill, by what process could he be denied giving freedoms to anything in his ambit?
Free will for God opens a whole new world of absurdity and contradictions. Many seem to think God is outside (space-)time, so the idea of it actually choosing at all becomes seriously questionable. But all you've done here is assert that God has free will is able to give it to others.
Not an argument. ::)
-
Anyway :) onwards and upwards or in this case just slightly left at the God Dodgers corner ( not nice Gonnagle, not nice at all ) this free will debate has me all of a tizzy, why is it so important, my [meanginless gibberish] ( theobllocks ) is built on words such as Faith, Trust, Belief and yes I will admit sometimes doubt, so lets talk free will, what's the big issue.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
Now here is a man telling me that the whole debate is still not decided, the question of free will is not such a open and shut case, me personally I think I have freewill ( think ) will I have a nice healthy breakfast, bollocks :P there is a lovely fry up with my name on it just waiting, so quite obviously I don't have freewill, no just me pandering to my more basic instincts.
So lets talk freewill, to end, if I am part of [meanginless gibberish] master plan then so be it, I have Faith, trust and belief, unsure about this freewill, enlighten me✝️
Your link mentioned, but did not address, the argument against free will that is being used by myself and others here. Just said:
"And in order to undermine the philosophical argument, we need to explain how a decision could be the product of someone’s free will — how the outcome of the decision could be under the given person’s control — even if the decision wasn’t caused by anything.
So, yes, this would all take a lot of work. Maybe I should write a book about it."
Under a person's control but not caused by anything? Good luck with that....
-
You sound very bitter. Relax, there probably isn't a God. Enjoy life.
Still, I can confirm one thing, my confirmation bias has not been removed, as every time I read a post like this it confirms my opinion of you religionist types. :P
What should you do if you feel more relaxed and enjoy life more if you believe there probably is a God?
-
I don't see why you find it difficult to grasp. Some of us are not convinced by the arguments and supposed facts that you religionists put forward.
I cannot believe in something I don't think exists. It is not complicated. Now you may claim that I need to undergo some sort of revelation or if I just try hard enough, study long enough, I will understand this thing called God. But, I just won't. It makes no sense to me.
As to religion that is practised by the likes of Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent Hinduism, on a personal level I have found them at times to be hateful and judgemental. Other religions I know less about and so won't comment on them, but as many adherents to each religion claim that theirs is the only true way, then clearly some religionists are lying or misguided.
Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy......
Humans are judgemental - atheists included. I have found lots of judgement flying around on this board from atheists. So why pin it just on religions? Tad hypocritical.
-
How can one 'believe' in something without knowing what it is one believes in? Apophaticism would seem to suggest that 'belief in God' is an oxymoron. Most theology deals with concepts about God but if these are inadmissible then such belief would by definition constitute idolatry. "Every religion is idolatry" (Cornelius Castoriadis). Was Jung correct to suggest that one of the main functions of religion is to protect people from the experience of God? Whatever the unknowable God may be, perhaps the dreaded atheist is, albeit inadvertently, closer to it than the faithful, lost as they must be in idolatrous fancies.
I would say that beliefs - about gods or morals - are emotional reactions to thoughts. Humans don't examine objective testable evidence before we form many of our beliefs. We tend to rely on a mix of our intuition and conscious thoughts, and often our beliefs are influenced by our goals e.g. if you are trying to form a cohesive group in order to achieve a particular goal, your intuitive beliefs may be different from people who prioritise diversity over achieving that shared goal.
So I think it is possible to have thoughts about God and have an emotional reaction and form intuitive beliefs motivated by your life goals. It is also possible to form intuitive beliefs about other abstract concepts, ethics and morals, which are motivated by your life goals. It seems that this is just the way humans have evolved and adapted in order to co-operate as part of a group or society.
-
I can see that in individual cases religion may work for some people by bringing peace of mind, solace, etc. but how do you go from that to the generalised statement above?
If you want to generalise, then so do I.
How are the very many prayers that are being sent up in Gaza currently being answered?
How is religion helping there? How is it working?
From what I have read, faith and religion are a comfort to people who are being bombed and killed in their tens of thousands. Here is a view from a Palestinian Christian https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/a-palestinian-christian-view-we-are-used-to-being-ignored/
-
Morality is based on empathy and compassion.
Morality is subjective and I think morality is based on a lot more than empathy and compassion e.g. reciprocity, accountability, justice, order instead of chaos, which inevitability leads to judgment and punishment to maintain order and justice.
To some people, justice, judgment and punishment might look like the opposite of empathy and compassion.
-
From what I have read, faith and religion are a comfort to people who are being bombed and killed in their tens of thousands. Here is a view from a Palestinian Christian https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/a-palestinian-christian-view-we-are-used-to-being-ignored/
Religious faith can certainly give comfort to some in adversity, but the opposite can also be true. Specifically the notion of betrayal, abandonment or even anger where a person feels that their god has forsaken them which can heighten the negative effects of the adversity and trauma suffered.
And the relationship between traumatic events and religiosity is complex - not just whether individuals find comfort or anguish in their religious believe, but also whether traumatic events strengthen or weaken prior religious beliefs e.g.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3173616/
Note their conclusion that 'findings did not support the hypothesis that religious beliefs prevent long-term posttraumatic stress, and religiosity was not associated with higher levels of life satisfaction', contrary to assertion that having religious faith helps people get through traumatic events.
-
Religious faith can certainly give comfort to some in adversity, but the opposite can also be true. Specifically the notion of betrayal, abandonment or even anger where a person feels that their god has forsaken them which can heighten the negative effects of the adversity and trauma suffered.
And the relationship between traumatic events and religiosity is complex - not just whether individuals find comfort or anguish in their religious believe, but also whether traumatic events strengthen or weaken prior religious beliefs e.g.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3173616/
Note their conclusion that 'findings did not support the hypothesis that religious beliefs prevent long-term posttraumatic stress, and religiosity was not associated with higher levels of life satisfaction', contrary to assertion that having religious faith helps people get through traumatic events.
...this may apply to Norwegians who experienced the 2004 Tsunami. How are you extrapolating from a study of Norwegian Tsunami victims who are a product of Norwegian cultural factors and environment to making a generalisation about religious faith?
Religious faith is individual to the person so whether a person derives comfort or feels anger is dependent on each individual's faith and practice and their particular thoughts about religion and god, which is itself is a product of their nature/nurture.
-
Dear Prof,
Tis true, tis very true, in my darkest moments I have felt all those feelings, betrayal, abandonment and most definitely anger, I have cursed God into the far reaches of hell, but in the healing, not a shadow of a doubt, he has been there and on reflection, my honest opinion a better man, although how that could possibly be 8) how can you improve on perfection :P
Gonnagle.
-
Religious faith is individual to the person so whether a person derives comfort or feels anger is dependent on each individual's faith and practice and their particular thoughts about religion and god, which is itself is a product of their nature/nurture.
Which is exactly the point I was making.
And the reason I posted my response was to counter your assertion, which appeared to claim a universality of response of those with religious faith:-
'From what I have read, faith and religion are a comfort to people who are being bombed and killed in their tens of thousands.'.
No nuance in that quote, no suggestion that while some may find religion and faith a comfort others may find that trauma leads to a crisis of faith which adds further pain to add to the pain they are already feeling because of the traumatic situation.
Now from your later posts it appears you agree with me that faith can be a comfort or can add to pain in times of trauma and which response occurs will be very much an individual matter. But your earlier post gave no indication of that nuance, merely an assertion that religion and faith are always a comfort.
-
Dear Prof,
Tis true, tis very true, in my darkest moments I have felt all those feelings, betrayal, abandonment and most definitely anger, I have cursed God into the far reaches of hell, but in the healing, not a shadow of a doubt, he has been there and on reflection, my honest opinion a better man, although how that could possibly be 8) how can you improve on perfection :P
Gonnagle.
So surely you can see that for some people a crisis of faith alongside a trauma may add to the pain rather than provide comfort.
And while I have no reason to challenge your ultimate response to that crisis of faith, surely you can also see that the following rather different responses are completely understandable to a situation where a person who believes in a loving, interventionalist god feels that god was no-where to be seen in their hour of greatest need.
1. To conclude that there is little point in praying to or worshiping a god who does not response and where there may be others who escapes the trauma (e.g. all family members survive a fire) who had no faith and do not pray.
or even:
2. To conclude that given that this supposedly loving, interventionalist god completely ignored them in their hour of need that the most obvious conclusion is that this god does not actually exist.
-
From what I have read, faith and religion are a comfort to people who are being bombed and killed in their tens of thousands.
I'm sure they are.
That is not what I asked about, though. I asked how the prayers were being answered.
Judging by the news today, more dead bodies.
-
Which is exactly the point I was making.
And the reason I posted my response was to counter your assertion, which appeared to claim a universality of response of those with religious faith:-
'From what I have read, faith and religion are a comfort to people who are being bombed and killed in their tens of thousands.'.
No nuance in that quote, no suggestion that while some may find religion and faith a comfort others may find that trauma leads to a crisis of faith which adds further pain to add to the pain they are already feeling because of the traumatic situation.
Now from your later posts it appears you agree with me that faith can be a comfort or can add to pain in times of trauma and which response occurs will be very much an individual matter. But your earlier post gave no indication of that nuance, merely an assertion that religion and faith are always a comfort.
Incorrect - I wrote that "From what I have read", to indicate that this is not universal and only based on what I have read about Palestinians in Gaza.
What I have read illustrates that ordinary civilians in Gaza can find conviction in faith - even when facing annihilation from heavily armed Western-backed armies, whose ethics include justification of mass bombing, starvation and ethnic cleansing of civilians.
So faith seems to be of some "use" to the Palestinians in Gaza against the bullets and bombs - people with faith seem prepared to accept horrors and accept death rather than accept being imprisoned and ethnically cleansed from their land by Israel and its supporters.
-
I'm sure they are.
That is not what I asked about, though. I asked how the prayers were being answered.
Judging by the news today, more dead bodies.
Dunno - depends what each person is hoping to get out of prayer.
My understanding of prayer is that you don't have a sense of entitlement that you will get what you are praying for - the act of prayer is an act of remembrance that prompts you to be conscious of your beliefs e.g. in your purpose in life/ the superiority of God; prayer can help you contemplate, express gratitude, sustain you spiritually in difficult times, remind you of moral values and shift your focus from simply reacting to your circumstances.
-
Humans are judgemental - atheists included. I have found lots of judgement flying around on this board from atheists. So why pin it just on religions? Tad hypocritical.
Not hypocritical at all.
I was discussing my personal experience of religions, that didn't exclude anyone else from being guilty of that. As religions are being portrayed by some on here as being a reflection of the best of human instincts it strikes a discordant note with me when religions act in a way that reflects some of the baser human instincts. That was the context of my remark.
-
Dunno - depends what each person is hoping to get out of prayer.
My understanding of prayer is that you don't have a sense of entitlement that you will get what you are praying for - the act of prayer is an act of remembrance that prompts you to be conscious of your beliefs e.g. in your purpose in life/ the superiority of God; prayer can help you contemplate, express gratitude, sustain you spiritually in difficult times, remind you of moral values and shift your focus from simply reacting to your circumstances.
So to be clear, prayers are not answered?
-
So to be clear, prayers are not answered?
To be clear - are you asking me what I believe about prayers? I have already given you my beliefs - see previous post. Can you elaborate which part of my answer you are having trouble understanding?
Is it the "depends what each person is hoping to get out of prayer."
Because the rest of it seems pretty self-explanatory - if you are praying to remember God, remind yourself of your insignificance in comparison, feel spiritually sustained, gain some perspective, re-affirm your belief in your purpose in Life, remind yourself of your moral values, ask forgiveness, ask for your burden to be lessened or to receive comfort etc - then you'll have to ask the person praying if they got some inkling of that from their prayer and therefore feel that some of their prayer was answered.
E.g. not sure what the Christian perspective is but I don't get the impression Muslims ask for forgiveness in prayer and subsequently report receiving confirmation from God that they have been forgiven.
Nor do I get the impression that it is an Islamic tradition that if a Muslim prays for something they expect to straightaway receive what they pray for - I think the idea is to have faith that if they do not receive what they pray for, it is for a reason, and to believe they may receive a reward for their faith and patience. My impression of prayer is it is an expression of faith and hope.
-
But I thought God was supposed to know everything that is going to happen. No? If so then there is no 'could'.
OK "would" it is.
So you are suggesting that God designed a bridge that would fall down and I'm suggesting he built a bridge that a person or people would would knock down.
-
OK "would" it is.
So you are suggesting that God designed a bridge that would fall down and I'm suggesting he built a bridge that a person or people would would knock down.
Designed a world where a person or people would knock the bridge down, knowing that that would happen, and being able to design a world where it didn't happen.
-
Dear Thread,
One of the key points in critical thinking.
4. Intellectual empathy is the ability to understand and appreciate perspectives different from one's own, even if those perspectives challenge one's own beliefs or values. It involves stepping outside of one's own frame of reference to understand the reasoning and motivations behind another person's way of thinking. This skill is crucial for productive dialogue and can help identify hidden common ground.
Faith
The Hebrew word for "faith" is emunah (אמונה). It's derived from the root word aman (אמן), which means "to be secure," "to be a support," or "to be firm". In the context of faith, emunah signifies trust, reliance, and loyalty, often used in the sense of faith in God. It's about demonstrating trust and faithfulness in action, rather than just believing in something.
Elaboration:
Root Word:
The root aman (אמן) is also the source of the word "Amen," which is used to affirm or agree with something. This connection highlights the idea of faith as a firm and reliable commitment.
Meaning in the Bible:
Emunah appears in the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and is often translated as "faith" or "belief" in English translations. It's not just about believing something is true, but about having faith in God and demonstrating that faith through actions.
Active Trust:
Emunah emphasizes active trust and reliance on God, often in the context of promises and faithfulness. It's not just passive belief, but an active commitment to God's will and promises.
Relationship to God:
In Jewish tradition, emunah is closely tied to the concept of having a personal relationship with God, trusting in His promises and guidance.
Examples:
The example of Abraham in Genesis 15 is often cited to illustrate emunah, as he demonstrated trust in God's promises, even in difficult circumstances.
Trust
The English word "trust" has roots in the Ancient Greek word "πίστις" (pistis), which translates to "faith, belief, trust, confidence". In Greek mythology, "Pistis" was also a personification of good faith, trust, and reliability. This word is also central to theological discourse, particularly in Christianity, where it's often translated as "faith" but also carries the meaning of trust and confidence in God and Jesus Christ.
Belief
The word "belief" has a rich history, evolving from its earliest forms in ancient Germanic languages to its present-day usage. The noun "belief" emerged in Middle English, likely as a variant of "yleve," according to the Oxford English Dictionary. This "yleve" itself came from Old English "gelēafa," meaning "belief, faith," which in turn was related to the Proto-West Germanic "*ga-laubon," signifying "to hold dear, esteem, trust," says the Online Etymology Dictionary. The Proto-Indo-European root "*leubh-" connects this to concepts of caring, desiring, and loving, notes the Online Etymology Dictionary.
Here's a more detailed look at the word's evolution:
Old English "gelēafa":
This word, meaning "belief, faith," was the precursor to the Middle English form.
Middle English "bileave":
The noun "belief" likely arose as a variant of "bileave," which eventually became "belief".
*Proto-West Germanic "ga-laubon":
This term meant "to hold dear, esteem, trust," showcasing the early connection between belief and affection.
*Proto-Indo-European "leubh-":
This root, meaning "to care, desire, love," is a key component in the word's etymological roots, highlighting the emotional aspect of belief.
The shift in meaning:
While the root meanings point to love and esteem, the word "belief" also evolved to encompass a broader range of ideas, including faith, confidence, and acceptance of something as true.
This post is purely for educational purposes and of course is not exhaustive, and no, no need to thank me, just helping the debate along.
Gonnagle.
-
Not hypocritical at all.
I was discussing my personal experience of religions, that didn't exclude anyone else from being guilty of that. As religions are being portrayed by some on here as being a reflection of the best of human instincts it strikes a discordant note with me when religions act in a way that reflects some of the baser human instincts. That was the context of my remark.
Sorry - missed this. Not sure that it is “religion” that is being portrayed by Gonnagle as a reflection of the best of human instincts. I thought he believed that about God. Religions are interpreted and practised by flawed humans so any experience you have of them will include the flaws of the human you encountered.
Presumably you think “moral judgment” about the behaviour of others is a “good” thing in social groups that want to maintain order and cooperation in the group?
-
Presumably you think “moral judgment” about the behaviour of others is a “good” thing in social groups that want to maintain order and cooperation in the group?
I think that depends entirely on what you are judging, what conclusions you reach, and what criteria you use to reach those conclusions.
-
Sorry - missed this. Not sure that it is “religion” that is being portrayed by Gonnagle as a reflection of the best of human instincts. I thought he believed that about God. Religions are interpreted and practised by flawed humans so any experience you have of them will include the flaws of the human you encountered.
Presumably you think “moral judgment” about the behaviour of others is a “good” thing in social groups that want to maintain order and cooperation in the group?
Dear Gabriella,
Absolutely correct, and I have pointed this out on many occasions on this forum, I am Human sorry! sorry! a flawed Human and this is where my Christianity, my religion kicks in, but certain posters on this forum seem to miss this very important point.
Gonnagle.
-
Designed a world where a person or people would knock the bridge down, knowing that that would happen, and being able to design a world where it didn't happen.
If I have understood correctly what you mean by “knock the bridge down”, then from observation of the world around me, that seems to be how intelligent organisms learn - through exploration, taking risks, failure, adaptation.
Why would it need to be a different process for higher intelligence organisms such as humans? In relation to morals about reciprocity, compassion, empathy, social cooperation and order - knocking the bridge down is how humans learn - by experiencing directly or indirectly failure, pain, suffering.
-
I think that depends entirely on what you are judging, what conclusions you reach, and what criteria you use to reach those conclusions.
Yes there will be disagreement between people as each individual’s nature/ nurture will lead inevitably to differing conclusions. Managing disagreement is part of the challenge in societies since they are a vehicle for social cooperation.
But presumably if you think it’s ok for you to make moral judgments then you can’t deny other people the same right?
-
But presumably if you think it’s ok for you to make moral judgments then you can’t deny other people the same right?
Of course I make moral judgements all the time.
Only yesterday I was wondering where I could locate a shotgun to deal with the mother sat in our local pub at noon on her third glass of wine whilst in charge of her 2 children both of whom were under 5.
I don't however base my judgements on a book that has on occasions been used to justify all sorts of dubious punishments.
Which brings me to Gonnagle's point about being only human. If the suggestion is that religions go wrong, or at least aren't "true to God" because humans are involved and are flawed, does the same apply to the holy books that have been written?
If that is the case, how flawed are the holy books? 10% 30% 50%? Which interpretation is the true one? How do you know? Is Gonnagle basing his interpretation on his inbuilt sense of kindness/prejudice, etc?
-
Dear Arun,
The book is not flawed, the person reading the book is flawed, simples ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Arun,
The book is not flawed, the person reading the book is flawed, simples ;)
Gonnagle.
Oh, so genocide and slavery are just fine. Good to know.
-
If I have understood correctly what you mean by “knock the bridge down”, then from observation of the world around me, that seems to be how intelligent organisms learn - through exploration, taking risks, failure, adaptation.
Why would it need to be a different process for higher intelligence organisms such as humans? In relation to morals about reciprocity, compassion, empathy, social cooperation and order - knocking the bridge down is how humans learn - by experiencing directly or indirectly failure, pain, suffering.
That was Walt's term I was going along with.
The discussion started with Walt distinguishing between '"Knowing something" and "causing something". My thinking is that if it is an Omni God we are talking about then I'm not sure that there is a difference.
-
Oh, so genocide and slavery are just fine. Good to know.
Says the fundamental atheist, oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right :o ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Says the fundamental atheist, oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right :o ::)
Gonnagle.
Ad hominem?
-
Ad hominem?
Dear Maeght,
"Gesundheit"
Gonnagle.
-
Says the fundamental atheist, oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right :o ::)
Gonnagle.
I wish you'd practice what you preach:
Intellectual empathy is the ability to understand and appreciate perspectives different from one's own, even if those perspectives challenge one's own beliefs or values. It involves stepping outside of one's own frame of reference to understand the reasoning and motivations behind another person's way of thinking. This skill is crucial for productive dialogue and can help identify hidden common ground.
-
Says the fundamental [meaningless gibberish], oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right :o ::)
Remember, if we have no idea what you mean by 'God', then we have no idea what you mean by 'atheist', let alone 'fundamental' atheist. Is that like a fundamental particle? Can't be broken down into other components, or something?
Also, you didn't address the point about the bible...
-
I wish you'd practice what you preach:
Dear Arun,
I stand admonished.
But regarding intellectual empathy, you or rather the Atheist fraternity do not give me much to work on, "there ain't no God" limits me in practicing my empathy. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Remember, if we have no idea what you mean by 'God', then we have no idea what you mean by 'atheist', let alone 'fundamental' atheist. Is that like a fundamental particle? Can't be broken down into other components, or something?
Also, you didn't address the point about the bible...
Dear Stranger,
Sorry but I would like you to address your point, using your critical thinking facilities.
Gonnagle.
-
But regarding intellectual empathy, you or rather the [meaningless gibberish] fraternity do not give me much to work on, "there ain't no [meaningless gibberish]" limits me in practicing my empathy. ;)
No wonder you're confused. Since you don't know, or won't say, what 'God' is, somebody denying it is not going to mean much. Not that most atheists do deny it like that. Generally people here are agnostic atheists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism), so they wouldn't say "there ain't no God" at all, they'd say something like "you have failed to convince me of your claim that there is a God", or, in your case, "what the fuck do you mean by 'God'?"
-
Sorry but I would like you to address your point, using your critical thinking facilities.
Which point? And what are you on about, you want me to address my own point?
-
Dear Arun,
The book is not flawed, the person reading the book is flawed, simples ;)
Gonnagle.
Gonners
If the book contains mistakes or lies, and there is no way to exclude these risks, then that it may be flawed is a reasonable conclusion (especially bearing in mind some of the claims it makes).
How it is read makes no difference to whether or not it is accurate - if it is read as metaphor, such as poetry can be, then I don't suppose it matters. However, when people say along the lines of "Jesus said.....whatever", as if it were certain knowledge, then I'd say they were over-reaching.
-
Which point? And what are you on about, you want me to address my own point?
Dear Stranger,
Yes, using your critical thinking, thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners
If the book contains mistakes or lies, and there is no way to exclude these risks, then that it may be flawed is a reasonable conclusion (especially bearing in mind some of the claims it makes).
How it is read makes no difference to whether or not it is accurate - if it is read as metaphor, such as poetry can be, then I don't suppose it matters. However, when people say along the lines of "Jesus said.....whatever", as if it were certain knowledge, then I'd say they were over-reaching.
Dear Gordon,
And yes once again says the fundamental Atheist, and quite honestly a serious question to you, do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?
Gonnagle.
PS: Please read the very first post on this thread before answering, thank you.
-
Dear Gordon,
And yes once again says the fundamental Atheist, and quite honestly a serious question to you, do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?
Gonnagle.
PS: Please read the very first post on this thread before answering, thank you.
I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.
That so many logical fallacies have been highlighted is just one example of critical thinking in action.
-
I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.
That so many logical fallacies have been highlighted is just one example of critical thinking in action.
Dear Gordon,
O'Riley :o My shoe size is a 8 and a half but sometimes I can be a nine.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
O'Riley :o My shoe size is a 8 and a half but sometimes I can be a nine.
Gonnagle.
In all honesty, I don't know what you are trying to say here.
-
In all honesty, I don't know what you are trying to say here.
Dear Gordon,
Well let me help you out, I asked,
do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?
You replied,
I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.
A fundamental point of critical thinking is to walk in another mans shoes, comprende, compadre ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
Sorry but I would like you to address your point, using your critical thinking facilities.
Gonnagle.
Again: which point? And I'm still not sure what you expect. For example, if you mean the bible and genocide and slavery, I can give you evidence in the form of references, but it wasn't a deduction, just reading the text to see what it says. What would require some serious argument skills is making a case that it doesn't really mean what it says...
-
Dear Gordon,
Well let me help you out, I asked,
do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?
You replied,
I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.
A fundamental point of critical thinking is to walk in another mans shoes, comprende, compadre ;)
Gonnagle.
Not really: if you conclude that the other man isn't wearing any shoes, then there is nothing worthwhile to walk in, and it is reasonable to point this out.
I'd say that critical thinking allows you dismiss what others say if you can reasonably conclude that what they say is fallacious and/or incoherent.
-
Not really: if you conclude that the other man isn't wearing any shoes, then there is nothing worthwhile to walk in, and it is reasonable to point this out.
I'd say that critical thinking allows you dismiss what others say if you can reasonably conclude that what they say is fallacious and/or incoherent.
Dear Gordon,
Nice, my Faith is empty, this is the result of your critical thinking, another fundamental point of critical thinking is confirmation bias, how is your confirmation bias Gordon, and please remember you are human, I have met you, I can vouch for that very fact.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
O'Riley :o My shoe size is a 8 and a half but sometimes I can be a nine.
Gonnagle.
Dear Gonners,
Just a few comments:
There is much more than walking in another person's shoes involved in critical thinking!
You seem to have a knack of coming over to some people on this forum (including me) as either confusing or confused. I haven't a clue what you mean by God, for instance, because you seem to be relying solely on certain human attributes rather than any distinct entity.
And when you are faced with challenging examples of how the bible is flawed, instead of giving a reasoned response, it seems you are unable or unwilling to do so, relying on what looks like sarcasm instead..
Incidentally, don't you think it's time that you took note of Stranger's post when he suggests that most atheists on this forum don't support the statement 'there ain't no God", even though it was your implicit assumption.
-
Dear Gordon,
Nice, my Faith is empty, this is the result of your critical thinking, another fundamental point of critical thinking is confirmation bias, how is your confirmation bias Gordon, and please remember you are human, I have met you, I can vouch for that very fact.
Gonnagle.
It's not confirmation bias though: it's simply the complete absence of any credible arguments or evidence for 'God' in the first place: therefore, there are no good reasons for me to take the 'God' notion seriously, nor anything that flows from that (such as religious traditions or holy books).
-
Nice, my Faith is empty...
Since you don't know (or won't tell us) what you think 'God' is, this appears to be quite literally true. The object of your faith is without meaning. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
-
It's not confirmation bias though: it's simply the complete absence of any credible arguments or evidence for 'God' in the first place: therefore, there are no good reasons for me to take the 'God' notion seriously, nor anything that flows from that (such as religious traditions or holy books).
Dear Gordon,
Yes, keep telling yourself that, but your answer does give me pause for thought, are Atheists scared to be human?
Goodnight and may your, oops! silly me.
Gonnagle.
-
Since you don't know (or won't tell us) what you think 'God' is, this appears to be quite literally true. The object of your faith is without meaning. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
Dear Stranger,
We had the conversation but your answers were "off the top of my head" and "probably" which made me wonder, should I have a conversation with someone who treats the greatest virtues a man could aspire to with off the top of my head and probably.
Goodnight Sir.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
Yes, keep telling yourself that, but your answer does give me pause for thought, are Atheists scared to be human?
Goodnight and may your, oops! silly me.
Gonnagle.
I'm ok with being human: it's just that I don't need 'God' to be human, and I think I act like a human when dealing with 'stuff' since being human is all I can ever be (even if, at times, it isn't easy).
Goodnight Gonners.
-
We had the conversation but your answers were "off the top of my head" and "probably" which made me wonder, should I have a conversation with someone who treats the greatest virtues a man could aspire to with off the top of my head and probably.
Answers? I think I said that once. Anyway, the reason was simply that I was asking you what you thought 'God' meant and you started going on about human virtues. We could discuss human virtues forever and a day, but if you think 'God' is human virtues, which was your initial claim, you'd then, in most senses of the word, be an atheist. You didn't like that and immediately contradicted yourself.
Which is worse, a vague comment or blatant self-contradiction?
-
But regarding intellectual empathy, you or rather the Atheist fraternity do not give me much to work on, "there ain't no God" limits me in practicing my empathy.
Think you are completely missing the point of empathy.
A clue for you, it doesn't work by getting all huffy when people don't bow to your assertions about religion and then throwing out phrases like "Atheist fraternity".
Anyway, right back at ya, because "there is a God that I know exists, but you are too stupid to see it" is not exactly a great starting point from your end either. You religionists are all the same. :P
-
Think you are completely missing the point of empathy.
A clue for you, it doesn't work by getting all huffy when people don't bow to your assertions about religion and then throwing out phrases like "Atheist fraternity".
Anyway, right back at ya, because "there is a God that I know exists, but you are too stupid to see it" is not exactly a great starting point from your end either. You religionists are all the same. :P
Dear Arun, a very good morning to you ;)
Yes my huffiness, something I need to work on, maybe I should consult a huffy Doctor, usually starts when I log onto this damn forum >:(
Anyway lets look on the bright side of life 🎵always look on the bright side of life🎵
Empathy, I thought it was a very old word but no.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/empathy-emotion-and-experience/201911/the-surprising-history-empathy#:~:text=The%20word%20%E2%80%9Cempathy%E2%80%9D%20thus%20appeared,feelings%20and%20movements%20into%20objects.
Aesthetic empathy can help us understand that our selves are not simply contained within our bodies, and our minds are not locked within our skulls. Instead, we can acknowledge our inherent connection to a world beyond ourselves. A harmonious relation to the world, according to early empathy theorists, was integral to the experience of beauty.
Yes this forum can certainly be a education :)
Gonnagle.
-
Of course I make moral judgements all the time.
Only yesterday I was wondering where I could locate a shotgun to deal with the mother sat in our local pub at noon on her third glass of wine whilst in charge of her 2 children both of whom were under 5.
I don't however base my judgements on a book that has on occasions been used to justify all sorts of dubious punishments.
Sure, you may not - and that is of course your prerogative based on your nature/ nurture.
Given religious books offer more than what someone subjectively considers to be "dubious punishments" based on the current cultural mores, other people may connect with various ideas about morality and spirituality in religious books and find them useful - that's their prerogative.
Which brings me to Gonnagle's point about being only human. If the suggestion is that religions go wrong, or at least aren't "true to God" because humans are involved and are flawed, does the same apply to the holy books that have been written?
Could be. The evidence seems to be that whether a holy book is flawed or not is a matter of faith.
If that is the case, how flawed are the holy books? 10% 30% 50%? Which interpretation is the true one? How do you know? Is Gonnagle basing his interpretation on his inbuilt sense of kindness/prejudice, etc?
You don't know which interpretation is the true one. You just do the best you can based on your individual nature/ nurture to try to interpret and understand the stories in the books and apply it to the environment you currently live in.
My nature/ nurture determines how much I prioritise social order and accountability over freedom and kindness. And living in the relative safety of London, my morality is different to if I was living in the middle of a war zone or living in a deprived, dangerous, inhospitable environment and trying to create some order or enforce social cooperation to defend against threats that are significantly more life-threatening than my inability to be my "authentic self".
-
significantly more life-threatening than my inability to be my "authentic self".
Not sure what you are saying.