Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Namelesss]

The theory that has been around for awhile about the oblate spheroidal shape of the Earth displaced the previous theory of a flat Earth. Simple.
QM has done the same thing to most of classical physics.
One example is science's long held ideal of the objective observer (and built much on it, such as 'repeatability'). QM has shown that to be impossible, as each observer is a unique and integral feature of the experiment.
The list is long.
All sciences need the critical QM update to avoid obsolescence!

And yet your car still works. You house is still standing. You can still use GPS and nuclear bombs still explode.

And placebos can heal you.
Yes, even Einstein sharted.
Perhaps if his diet were improved through modern understanding of nutrition, his system might have been vastly improved.
In the meantime, sure, we can destroy the planet and each other with our cars.

[Dark Matter]

Eduk:

Remember what said about how many here seem to think ideas are not "philosophical" unless they are empirically verifiable? Spectrum is one of them. (Check out his last post.)

[Spectrum]

Eduk:

Remember what said about how many here seem to think ideas are not "philosophical" unless they are empirically verifiable? Spectrum is one of them. (Check out his last post.)

Where did I say that.

I have stated the following many times, there are,

• 1. Philosophical ideas
  2. Philosophical concepts

Generally I believe everything is encompassed within Philosophy.
That is why we have and read of 'Philosophy of this, that or anything.'
Philosophy is thus meta-knowledge above all knowledge including Philosophy as a subject.

I had stated whatever is not empirically possible is an empirical impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, e.g. the philosophical idea of a God which is illusory.

[Eduk]

Atheism, as it is best described (in my opinion), comes on three levels.
1. Not a belief in god or gods (pantheism included).
2. A belief that others should not believe in god or gods.
3. A belief that god or gods does not exist.

One doesn't require any proof.

Two follows from one but is less black and white. As in you can make an argument that believing in unreasonable things is generically bad but you can also make an argument that some people might benefit from their unreasonable beliefs (the common example is the old lady comforted by God). Personally I am for reality and against non reality as a comfort blanket (I don't really like to patronise people). But even I take this on a case by case basis.

Three is where a burden of proof comes in. Now many theists (maybe most?) when they think of atheism only think of level 3. Likewise many atheists (no idea on exact numbers) only think of level 3. Now I agree with level 3 but only with the caveat that god or gods must first be defined. For me all definitions of god or gods that I have read so far are undefined and vague and could be taken to mean anything. For example if I said there is something behind Mars and then you found something behind mars would that be the same something that I was talking about? It is like writing horoscopes. This is why I always ask people how their belief in their god changes anything they do, so far no one I've asked has answered that question. This is also why Spectrum is completely wrong in blaming a belief in god for immoral actions.

Agnosticism isn't, in my opinion, best defined as a 50/50 chance in God (although that is a common definition). After all if you say you are agnostic to all religions then that is a lot of coin flips. I prefer to define agnostic as simply not having access to enough information.

For example if you ask me if the universe was created I would say I am agnostic. As in I have no information on the creation/or not of the universe. I can draw no conclusions. It can have no effect on my decision making.
Similarly you can ask me if the universe has a purpose. Again I am agnostic as I have no information.
If you ask me if Christian God created the universe I say no.

[Spectrum]

This is also why Spectrum is completely wrong in blaming a belief in god for immoral actions.

Wonder why you get the above idea?
I have never generalized the above, i.e. all of theism = immoral actions.



I have evidences from the holy books of the religion where many of the above evil acts of deadly and fatalistic terror and violence are directly linked to a God who inspires theists to commit the above acts as a divine duty with a promised of special favor of eternal life in paradise [with virgins thrown in as a bonus].

There are many other evils of the religion that are traceable directly to the specific religion.

Where I have accused any religion of directly promoting evil acts, I support my assertion with evidence.

Whilst I do not claim ALL theistic beliefs lead to immoral actions, I believe to deal with theistic-based evils and violence from SOME evil prone theists the most efficient solution to prevent and eliminate theistic based evils and violence is to rope in all theistic beliefs.

Note my signature, I am not proposing we get rid of all theistic beliefs NOW or the very near future. The effective solution is to find foolproof alternatives to replace theistic beliefs [illusory] in the future on a voluntary basis to resolve the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

I am optimistic in the future [>50, >75 years or >] we will have the knowledge and technology to come up with effective non-theistic methods to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis. With the above theists will naturally and voluntarily shun theism [when they understand God is illusory] and turn to non-theistic approaches without any potential for evil.

[Belindi]

Spectrum wrote:

My contention here is 'ontological', i.e. theists [majority] believe in the sense that God is a independent real being existing ontological somewhere out there who
1. will listen and answers their prayers
2. promise and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life.
3. do other supernatural things
The minority of theists believe in God is various ontological forms, i.e. existing independently out there.

-------------

Why I am giving attention to this idea of God is, this mere illusory thing is the basis that is driving one serious category of real terrible evils and violence around the world, majority from Islam, and some from Christianity and Judaism. As a concerned citizen of humanity one must address this problem and not be an ostrich to it.

I agree that it's likely that most theists believe. I mean 'believe' as in God is an ontological substance, and more , that He is a huge Person. Your list, from 1 to 3, Spectrum, describes a person not an idea. Islam opposes the idea of personhood of God so is more adult than old fashioned Trinitarian Christians would have it.

By "old-fashioned Trinitarian Christianity I refer to ontological belief in a God-substance that can and does intervene in nature with full consciousness of what it is doing. It follows that pantheists aren't theists and cannot believe in both pantheism and also a God who intervenes in nature.It is with good reason that the Roman Church has declared pantheism to be a heresy.

I understand that modern Christian theologians don't believe that God can and does intervene in nature. This revised belief puts immense strain upon people of goodwill who while they may well believe that humanity will soon be extinct nevertheless glorify and support goodness that is part of human nature and which can be trusted and viewed as ordinary human kindness and openness to truth and can be continued until our actual extinction takes place. I say "God help me to believe " and not go down the path of postmodern lack of all morality. Some cultures of belief are better than others . Justice and truth do exist and whether they exist ontologically or not is a useless discussion.

Theists who belief ontologically in God as a Person are at risk of losing their faith when they grow up to acquire adult states of mind. Thesists who believe ontologically are at risk of being seduced by those humans who claim to know God better i.e. those priests of religion or politics who wield autocratic power.

[Eduk]

I have evidences from the holy books of the religion where many of the above evil acts of deadly and fatalistic terror and violence are directly linked to a God who inspires theists to commit the above acts as a divine duty with a promised of special favor of eternal life in paradise [with virgins thrown in as a bonus].

Problem is that people interpret holy books however they see fit. For example the Bible has passages about how best to look after ones slaves but the vast majority of present day Christians would be anti-slavery. As another example I once saw a debate between a gay priest who said the bible directly gave him his beliefs and a homophobic priest who said the bible is directly against gays. At the end of the day a holy book is only a small part of the overall puzzle.

Where I have accused any religion of directly promoting evil acts, I support my assertion with evidence.

The problem you have is that while you can say evil act A was done by a Muslim and that that Muslim said it was because of his religious belief you now have to prove a number of things.
1. That the Muslim is accurately describing his reasons. I wouldn't simply take his word for it myself.
2. You have to separate religion from culture and show where religion would lead to evil acts but culture wouldn't. For example was the holocaust a religious act?
3. You then have to show disproportionate instances of evil acts done in the name of religion compared with other reasons, such as greed. For example the number of Americans killed by terrorists is dwarfed by the number of Americans killed by Americans.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum wrote:

My contention here is 'ontological', i.e. theists [majority] believe in the sense that God is a independent real being existing ontological somewhere out there who
1. will listen and answers their prayers
2. promise and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life.
3. do other supernatural things
The minority of theists believe in God is various ontological forms, i.e. existing independently out there.

-------------

Why I am giving attention to this idea of God is, this mere illusory thing is the basis that is driving one serious category of real terrible evils and violence around the world, majority from Islam, and some from Christianity and Judaism. As a concerned citizen of humanity one must address this problem and not be an ostrich to it.

I agree that it's likely that most theists believe. I mean 'believe' as in God is an ontological substance, and more , that He is a huge Person. Your list, from 1 to 3, Spectrum, describes a person not an idea. Islam opposes the idea of personhood of God so is more adult than old fashioned Trinitarian Christians would have it.

I agree Islam reject personhood of God, thus no image of God is permitted.
Nevertheless the Islamic Allah is an ontological Being which can still perform 1-3 and inspires SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence around the world.

Theists who belief ontologically in God as a Person are at risk of losing their faith when they grow up to acquire adult states of mind. Theists who believe ontologically are at risk of being seduced by those humans who claim to know God better i.e. those priests of religion or politics who wield autocratic power.

Totally agree.

That is my point which I have been arguing strongly, i.e. all ideas of God will ultimately, naturally, necessarily and logically gravitate towards an ontological Being, i.e. a God [Being not person] than which no greater exists. Note St. Anselm, Descartes, Islam's Allah, and others.

But then they are pushing them into their own dead end and in a checkmate position.

I have proven an ontological Being that must be absolutely perfect [a God (Being not person) than which no greater exists] is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality. Such a god is only possible in thought and based on pseudo-reasoning.

[Spectrum]

I have evidences from the holy books of the religion where many of the above evil acts of deadly and fatalistic terror and violence are directly linked to a God who inspires theists to commit the above acts as a divine duty with a promised of special favor of eternal life in paradise [with virgins thrown in as a bonus].

Problem is that people interpret holy books however they see fit. For example the Bible has passages about how best to look after ones slaves but the vast majority of present day Christians would be anti-slavery. As another example I once saw a debate between a gay priest who said the bible directly gave him his beliefs and a homophobic priest who said the bible is directly against gays. At the end of the day a holy book is only a small part of the overall puzzle.

The Bible [NT] has evil elements but the overriding ethos of the NT is that of pacifism, love and compassion. The NT has that overriding maxim of 'love your enemies' 'love your neighbor' 'give your other cheeks' 'love this and that' etc.
The above ethos facilitate the majority of Christians to lead towards the compassionate path without invoking much guilt.

The Quran is very different where the ethos is strongly anti-non-Muslims and the God therein issue commands that are antagonistic towards non-Muslims. Many [not all] Muslims who are vulnerable believe it is their divine duty to follow the commands of Allah [violence against non-Muslims] or else they may go to hell.

Where I have accused any religion of directly promoting evil acts, I support my assertion with evidence.

The problem you have is that while you can say evil act A was done by a Muslim and that that Muslim said it was because of his religious belief you now have to prove a number of things.
1. That the Muslim is accurately describing his reasons. I wouldn't simply take his word for it myself.
2. You have to separate religion from culture and show where religion would lead to evil acts but culture wouldn't. For example was the holocaust a religious act?
3. You then have to show disproportionate instances of evil acts done in the name of religion compared with other reasons, such as greed. For example the number of Americans killed by terrorists is dwarfed by the number of Americans killed by Americans.

Re 1, I have spent almost 3 years on a full time basis researching the Quran and linking the evils acts of SOME Muslims directly to the commands of their God in the Quran.
I have cross-checked the various claims of terrorists who quote from the Quran and verify it is true they are interpreting the texts correctly. We have to go into deep details on this issue.

Re 2, yes there is difference between culture and what is directly from the religion.
Acts like Female Genital Mutilation, honor killings which are claimed by many to be directly related to Islam are not accurate. It so happened the majority of these cases are committed by Muslims, but these acts are related to culture and not to the religion.

Re 3, It is wrong to make the comparison, "the number of Americans killed by terrorists is dwarfed by the number of Americans killed by Americans" so don't take action.
The point is ALL types of evil acts must be addressed in their respective categories which in this case is theistic-based-evils which is very critical to humanity at present.
The relevance is whether theistic based evil by themselves are a critical threat to humanity at present and in the future or not. They are indeed a serious threat to humanity at present and in the future.

I have often referred to this rough statistics;


Even if we discount away 50% of the above, the acts of theistic-based evil is still a critical issue for humanity.
The above refer to only cases with fatalities [death]. There is a big range of evil acts committed by SOME Muslims on non-Muslims and even towards other Muslims.

The theoretical solution to the above is easy, i.e. explained away the idea of God and there will be no more theistic-based-evil. Then theists will have no God and holy verses to justify their evil and violent acts. Of course in practice it is not possible at present. This gives us a clue for a direction which we can take in the future when there are effective alternative replacements.

[Sy Borg]

We will have to agree to disagree, Spec. I think your "cure" of sterility and homogeneity - the inevitable results of complete control - is worse than weeds.

My expected end results will be something like Buddhism [an improved neutral version] but without the religious elements.
As you can extrapolate from the current 'harmless' Buddhism proper, how can there be a problem or threat to humanity or 'worse than weeds'.

Buddhism is not dictatorial or controlling.

Consider the concept of weeds. My lawn has so many weeds that the only way to clear them away is to rip up the lawn and replace it. I think a similar situation applies when being extra particular about the "weeds" of society. As the maxim goes, perfection is the enemy of the good.

[Eduk]

The theoretical solution to the above is easy, i.e. explained away the idea of God and there will be no more theistic-based-evil.

Ok let me try to make my point more concisely. I believe that people should not believe unreasonable beliefs. This includes, but is not limited, to religious beliefs. Removing all religious beliefs from the world wouldn't change the world at all (in my opinion) because there would be still be many unreasonable beliefs left over to slip into.

[Londoner]

Nope, I am not fundamentally on the same page with theists.
I believe everyone must have a very strong personal conviction on what they believe but these beliefs must be based on justified true knowledge and not blind/strong faith.

First I do not believe as the theists do, i.e. fundamentally in something that is illusory and impossible to exist in the empirical-rational reality.

But you do believe in something. If your own belief is not 'illusory' and exists 'in the empirical-rational reality' you never spell out how you know this.

There is always this odd mixture; ' a very strong personal conviction' and 'justified true knowledge'. A personal conviction is a state of mind, to say somebody has a conviction is to make an observation about them, not their opinion. We can note a theist has a very strong personal conviction' without implying they can also present a compelling argument.

But 'justified true knowledge' is a claim that something is true as a matter of fact. It is the claim that nobody rational could possibly disagree with us. So, if I believe X is true as a fact, it is superfluous to add 'I have a conviction about x' since that the two must go together. It would be rather self-contradictory to say 'X is true but I am not convinced of this'. We would respond; 'What you mean is you are not sure X is true'.

So it does come across very much like the 'faith' of the theist. A peculiar mixture of a choice to commit oneself to a view, while accepting that it isn't a choice that would compel agreement from others.

And then you are very like some theists in that you love to preach! Honestly, it is just like attending church, with the same old formulas copy/pasted again and again. On any topic, it is only a matter of time before the Muslims come round!

So let us take something very basic. From your criticisms of others, you seem to believe that right and wrong (in the moral sense) are meaningful judgments. Why do you think this? Is there something 'in the empirical-rational reality' that makes such judgments meaningful? Or are your opinions based on 'personal conviction'? That they simply feel that way to you, and that you find it hard to believe that everyone else would not feel the same way.

[Belindi]

Greta wrote:

Consider the concept of weeds. My lawn has so many weeds that the only way to clear them away is to rip up the lawn and replace it. I think a similar situation applies when being extra particular about the "weeds" of society. As the maxim goes, perfection is the enemy of the good.

That 's right but there are lawns that don't grow good grass because of lack of nitrogen. I moved into a new house surrounded by subsoil. I scattered a large amount of Dutch white clover seed on the raw subsoil. Moral if you apply reason overall you get better ground for freedom and variety.

[Sy Borg]

Greta wrote:

Consider the concept of weeds. My lawn has so many weeds that the only way to clear them away is to rip up the lawn and replace it. I think a similar situation applies when being extra particular about the "weeds" of society. As the maxim goes, perfection is the enemy of the good.

That 's right but there are lawns that don't grow good grass because of lack of nitrogen. I moved into a new house surrounded by subsoil. I scattered a large amount of Dutch white clover seed on the raw subsoil. Moral :P if you apply reason overall you get better ground for freedom and variety. :lol:

It seems there is an art to applying nitrogen to lawn http://blog-yard-garden-news.extension. ... es-of.html

Still, while philosophers have long imagined some kind of perfection, I'm fine with weeds, aside from certain especially invasive and destructive ones. Relative perfection in anything makes me feel unworthy, as though I dare not sit on the pristine white lounge, so to speak. Realistically, any attempt to curtail religiosity in society would provoke significant civil unrest.

[Eduk]

any attempt to curtail religiosity

Surely that depends on the attempt? For example I don't think religions should be banned anymore than I think atheism should be banned.

But if you could for example teach critical thinking in schools.