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

[Spectrum]

I don't see the point of any of this. People believe all kinds of things that cannot be proven.

When people believe in a God that cannot be proven and this is the consequences we need to study the whole issue in detail;

• 

There are a tons of other evils and violence committed throughout the history of mankind in the name of God directly linked to the holy texts from God.

[Dark Matter]

I don't see the point of any of this. People believe all kinds of things that cannot be proven.

When people believe in a God that cannot be proven and this is the consequences we need to study the whole issue in detail;

• 

There are a tons of other evils and violence committed throughout the history of mankind in the name of God directly linked to the holy texts from God.

YOU need to be studied in detail.

Mod note: DM, not long ago you publicly complained about that some of your posts were deleted due to my supposed secular bias. So this post can stand as an example of kind of rubbish posts that I delete.

Such posts are deleted because they are ad hominem attacks that lack content. The deletions never had anything to do with your panentheism.

[Belindi]

Spectrum wrote:

What they have discovered is a relief to the manifesting existential angst they don't know where it is coming from but there is relief when they take drugs, pain-killers etc.

But many if not most drug takers well know where the angst is coming from

[Eduk]

Note the current craze in pain killers and opioids- e.g. fentanyl, etc. Why do so many people risk their life taking pain-killers when they do not have real medical-physical pains. What they have discovered is a relief to the manifesting existential angst they don't know where it is coming from but there is relief when they take drugs, pain-killers etc.

So let us imagine everyone suffers existential angst. Now there are a range of solutions, drugs, religion, acceptance of reality. These range from the best possible solution to the worst possible solution. Religion is just one of many solutions. So in what way is religion unique and deserving of special removal? Surely we should be aiming to removing all bad performing solutions and retaining all good performing solutions? Shouldn't that be your goal?

Believers consume fewer drugs than atheists
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093041.htm
This is the conclusion reached by a study funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

The actual study is much less sure of itself, though I have only read the abstract because it is behind a pay wall.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041170

Logistic regressions (adjusting for parenting and socioeconomic background) revealed that religiosity/spirituality was inversely associated with substance use and that it was more strongly associated than denomination. RD, particularly having no denomination, was independently associated with the use of most substances. The study's limitations, and the implications for future work are noted.

So actually it is spirituality (however they are defining that) that is most correlatory. The limitations and implications I cannot find, as I said it's behind a pay wall.

This is the problem with a lot of science journalism. They take a random study and make a random conclusion which the study doesn't support.

Even taken at face value there are clearly issues with the studies. For example they are only asking young Swiss.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

If you don't have the time, I agree you don't have to do it.
But for intellectual sake, you need to do it to support your point with such details and confidence levels.

My time isn't the issue. I thought that I made it clear why I don't want to complete the task you suggest? What does “for intellectual sake” mean? I don't see how posting an arbitrary speculation will support anything that I've stated. Don't arguments need to be supported by facts/evidence?

I believe the difference between what is primary and secondary is very obvious in terms of set and subsets.
The primary sets is those directly related to the words of God while others are subset thus secondary.

I think that the qualifier here is “I believe”. Which means that what you're stating is not factual, but opinion.

I was referring to an agnostic or one who was indifferent to God but then because to please the girl declare he is a theist in mind and all occasion. Such a belief I would say in secondary relative to what would be primary.

With respect, I don't that think this scenario is a possibility.

Nope, what I am referring is direct empirical evidence to justify the existence of God. 
I stated it is empirically possible for a pink unicorn to exists but we know it is very very slim but it not impossible. To prove a pink unicorn exists, one will need to bring a pink unicorn for empirical testing and justification.
But God is empirically impossible as I had demonstrated.

What evidence is there for the existence of a pink unicorn? Your prior list of “empirical elements” is not sufficient IMO. Also, if as you claim there's a possibility of pink unicorns existing, why can't they be “absolutely perfect”? Also, remember that “unicorns” are "magical creatures". Can't you see that by your own arguments, God and unicorns are in the same category?

This is my claim, it is up to you to disprove.

I think it has been shown that your arguments in this case are not sound.

Yes, I insist but I have provided justification.

I think that the only justification of your arguments is that God cannot be proven to exist empirically. Impossibility requires a leap of faith.

You missed my point. I stated it is empirically possible and we need all the empirical evidences available but it can be further reinforced with brain imagings.

So you insist, but I think the consensus would generally be interpretation.

I suggest you raised the valid counter-argument in that threat and I will address them. For me there are no outstanding points I have not address and dismiss.

There are many, and they're valid IMO. You claimed that your argument is perfect. For me, that claim alone is enough to show that it is not a sound argument.

I had relied heavily [not fully] on Kant's argument re where the thing-in-itself is claimed to be a real empirical God it is an illusion. If you can prove Kant wrong then my support would be greatly shaken.

Kant did not use the term 'absolute perfection'. I derived it from various other philosophies in combination with Kant.

I'm not going to attempt to prove Kant wrong, and since you've already be proven wrong a number of times, proving Kant wrong wasn't necessary.

[SimpleGuy]

Those who are less serious with their religion may get involved in drugs.

As for non-theists, there is no psychological authority to prick their conscience at all when they are faced with or tempted to take drugs.

Note the Religion of Peace has provision for their believers to lie.
If lying is prohibited in the holy texts I don't think the serious believers would lie easily.

Well the problem is, we were created with the capablity to take drugs like alcohol. How is it possible, that an omnipotent god, creates us with
this temptation, why shouldn't we use it. The first drugs in use indicated for shamans the way to other dimensions and god. Just think about DMT
Dimethyltriptamine, it's quite famous for giving the users some kind of contact to god while in usage. It's still contained in wine beverages of
amazonian native americans to produce contact to gods. By the way, this could lead to a scientific investigation, if the contact to god induced
via DMT, has something to do with the contact to god in prayers, via measurement of the BCI-technology of neural computational science with
some functional magnetic resonance. If yes , contact to god, would be a chemical controllable process. But for more, the use of drugs, indicated
shamans that there is more than pure consumption of food, they invented the medicine. Just think about that.

[SimpleGuy]

Sorry this wasn't Spectrum who wrote about drugs and god. It was me SimpleGuy who did this. I messed up with the quotes.
Just think, that pure believe can somehow get extracted as a neural excitement and an artifact via functional magnetic resonance.
Then compare it to the contact to god while using DMT and the measurements of it via functional magnetic resonance and
then think about if god and drugs are something totally uncomparable.

[SimpleGuy]

And DMT, Dimethyltryptamine, is one of the drug with the highest rate of persons who claimed to have contact to god. There is a serious amount of people who claimed that after usage of this drug they talked to god. By the way we shouldn't despise native americans , who use this drug in the beverage of ayahuasca for shamanic reasons for ceremonies. So why don't we look at it in a scientific way, and analyze this contact in comparison
to so called contact to god of other people.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

I suggest you raised the valid counter-argument in that threat and I will address them. For me there are no outstanding points I have not address and dismiss.

Here are my reasons for why I think your argument is invalid:

As has been explained to you countless times, the term “absolute perfection” is a nonsense term. No matter the context you apply it in; epistemically, ontologically, metaphysically etc, because it implies that there's an “absolute, absolute”. The term “absolute perfection”, I think, is only used in language to add emphasise to how good something is - philosophically it has no meaning.

Perfection is used to describe an absolute state and is only relative to something that is not perfect or that is short of a perfect ideal. If we accept this, it is clear that what you're arguing is that perfection cannot exist empirically, which is patently false. Therefore, your P1: “Absolute perfection is an impossibility” is false.

Your P2: “God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect” is also false, (a) because there's no necessity for God to be perfect and (b) because there's no evidence that God is perfect. Scriptures may claim that God is perfect, but we cannot refer to them as an evidential basis. Now your conclusion: “Therefore God is an impossibility.” is invalid because the premises are false.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum wrote:

What they have discovered is a relief to the manifesting existential angst they don't know where it is coming from but there is relief when they take drugs, pain-killers etc.

But many if not most drug takers well know where the angst is coming from

They do feel unease, anxieties, etc. but they do not associate these feelings with the existential angst nor its roots.

[Spectrum]

Note the current craze in pain killers and opioids- e.g. fentanyl, etc. Why do so many people risk their life taking pain-killers when they do not have real medical-physical pains. What they have discovered is a relief to the manifesting existential angst they don't know where it is coming from but there is relief when they take drugs, pain-killers etc.

So let us imagine everyone suffers existential angst. Now there are a range of solutions, drugs, religion, acceptance of reality. These range from the best possible solution to the worst possible solution. Religion is just one of many solutions. So in what way is religion unique and deserving of special removal? Surely we should be aiming to removing all bad performing solutions and retaining all good performing solutions? Shouldn't that be your goal?

I have stated many times; ALL evil acts within humanity must be addressed and resolved, prevented or reduce to as much as possible. This forum is on Religion and theism, so we have to stick to subject and rules of the forum. I do have another project, i.e. "Addressing ALL Evil Acts of Humanity".

Why religion and especially theistic religions. All religions has their pros and cons but at present the pros of religions are outweighing their cons. But the current trend toward the future is the cons of theistic religions are outweighing their pros. Just imagine if the extremists were able to establish an independent Islamic State [the almost did] and they sneak through like North Korea. With that kind of inherent malignant ethos within the religion, it is very possible for a more stable Islamic State somewhere especially after they have learned their lesson from the current defeat.

With Nukes on hand, it is a win-win for them because regardless of what happen to the human species and Earth they will be highly rewarded in Paradise if they can kill all the perceived 'vermins' [non-believers].

The above potential is already very evident with what has happened throughout history and at the present and the high certainty it will happen in the future.

quote]Believers consume fewer drugs than atheists
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093041.htm
This is the conclusion reached by a study funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

The actual study is much less sure of itself, though I have only read the abstract because it is behind a pay wall.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041170

Logistic regressions (adjusting for parenting and socioeconomic background) revealed that religiosity/spirituality was inversely associated with substance use and that it was more strongly associated than denomination. RD, particularly having no denomination, was independently associated with the use of most substances. The study's limitations, and the implications for future work are noted.

So actually it is spirituality (however they are defining that) that is most correlatory. The limitations and implications I cannot find, as I said it's behind a pay wall.

This is the problem with a lot of science journalism. They take a random study and make a random conclusion which the study doesn't support.

Even taken at face value there are clearly issues with the studies. For example they are only asking young Swiss.

[Spectrum]

The actual study is much less sure of itself, though I have only read the abstract because it is behind a pay wall.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041170


So actually it is spirituality (however they are defining that) that is most correlatory. The limitations and implications I cannot find, as I said it's behind a pay wall.

This is the problem with a lot of science journalism. They take a random study and make a random conclusion which the study doesn't support.

Even taken at face value there are clearly issues with the studies. For example they are only asking young Swiss.

The problem with drugs is there are many variables and conditions to consider, i.e. general religion, denominations, sects, social-economic environment, etc.
In addition we have also to take into account the types of drugs used.

There are theists who use drugs or hallucinogen to increase the intensity of their experiences and feeling with God. More clues why theism is psychological.

• 'I advocate for the use of ayahuasca as a sacrament. The world is in spiritual crisis these days'
  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 03341.html

• https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... s-in-india
  The god, Shiva is frequently associated with cannabis, called bhang in India

In this case my consideration is with very hard drugs that really caused very problematic social evils. In this case, my guess [personal conviction] is the non-thestic are more prone and vulnerable to get involved with hard drugs to deal with the inherent existential angst which is more active within their psyche.

Since you raised the point I will try to gather more evidences from credible research on this matter to justify my hypothesis.

[Eduk]

But the current trend toward the future is the cons of theistic religions are outweighing their pros. Just imagine if the extremists were able to establish an independent Islamic State [the almost did] and they sneak through like North Korea. With that kind of inherent malignant ethos within the religion, it is very possible for a more stable Islamic State somewhere especially after they have learned their lesson from the current defeat.

Well I don't see the slippery slope. Of course things can get worse but they can also get better. As to which way they will go, I don't know, but I wouldn't think it was final.
Let me put it another way. If you surround yourself with a philosophy which freezes your mind then your mind will be frozen. Perhaps you are then dangerous to offers but frankly the person you are most dangerous to is yourself. I see extreme disregard of reality as being ultimately self defeating. Of course that is not to say that much harm cannot be done on the way to being defeated. But again I see no special reason to educate against religion when you can educate against all unreasonable beliefs just as easily. Like I said earlier if you did write a course designed to remove religion through logic how would you surgically only remove religion but no other unreasonable beliefs.

[Belindi]

Spectrum wrote:



But many if not most drug takers well know where the angst is coming from

They do feel unease, anxieties, etc. but they do not associate these feelings with the existential angst nor its roots.

If you are homeless, bullied at work, overworked in order to simply stay alive, chronically lonely, or otherwise a total reject, you jolly well do know where your angst is coming from and how drugs like alcohol and so on sometimes are the only relief available for you in today's society.

[Eduk]

how drugs like alcohol and so on sometimes are the only relief available for you in today's society.

As opposed to what other society? Also recreational drugs only appear to offer relief? And the cost is greater than the cure (so to speak). Don't get me wrong I'm not saying every single person who ever took drugs in their life is absolutely a bad person, I'm just saying they have, almost certainly, made a bad choice.