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

[Greatest I am]

True.

Evidence is built on facts while faith is built on fantasy.

Religious belief then, is a thing that is prone to falsehood, given the numbers of Gods.

Right?

Regards
DL

If only you applied your lack of evidence to your own beliefs.

I have all the evidence I need for my belief system.

That
One is why I can argue that it is the best.

Find any Christian able to argue his.

Regards
DL

If you have to argue, then you don't have evidence.

Poor* comment.

Regards
DL

* mod euphemism

[EricPH]

If you have to argue, then you don't have evidence.

Poor* comment.

Regards
DL

* mod euphemism

If you said 2+2 = 4, there is nothing to argue about. You only need an argument if you have little or no evidence. Arguments tend to be pointless, you have already won in your own mind. Just be content that you have won the argument against yourself.

[Belindi]

True.

Evidence is built on facts while faith is built on fantasy.

Religious belief then, is a thing that is prone to falsehood, given the numbers of Gods.

Right?

Regards
DL

If only you applied your lack of evidence to your own beliefs.

I have all the evidence I need for my belief system.

That is why I can argue that it is the best.

Find any Christian able to argue his.

Regards
DL

If you have to argue, then you don't have evidence.

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief in the Christian myth but he has ample justification for his belief. We should be pragmatic about the benefits of Xianity and relate Xianity solely to the moral code as promoted by Jesus and so many others around that time.

[Sy Borg]

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief in the Christian myth but he has ample justification for his belief. We should be pragmatic about the benefits of Xianity and relate Xianity solely to the moral code as promoted by Jesus and so many others around that time.

If he was more confident of his beliefs he would acknowledge the above and approach the conversation with reason rather than reflexive defensive blocks, eg. "All you can do is hope".

To reply to arguments with with same dogmatic response is, as Camus put it, philosophical suicide. Joshua deals with the absurdity of his human longing for meaning against the backdrop of a deeply uncaring world/universe by pretending that reality is not real, that it is a mere shadow play, a pale representation of a deeper reality. Theists look into the sky and see God and his works, where there are actually just the Moon, distant stars, rocks, dust, radiation and other fields, and lots and lots and lots of space.

Yet one does not need to invoke myths to be in awe of nature and reality in general. For instance, stars are, to me, one of the most mind-boggling aspects of reality, one that is criminally (IMO) taken for granted by most. The Earth a somewhat more appreciated wonder - a bloom of emerging sentience in the wilderness of space. The construction of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, communities and ecosystems are truly amazing when one takes time away from human self-obsession and actually pays them attention - without seeing it through the distorted filter of human mythology. As Douglas Adams said:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

[Joshua10]

If only you applied your lack of evidence to your own beliefs.

I have all the evidence I need for my belief system.

That is why I can argue that it is the best.

Find any Christian able to argue his.

Regards
DL

If you have to argue, then you don't have evidence.

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief in the Christian myth but he has ample justification for his belief. We should be pragmatic about the benefits of Xianity and relate Xianity solely to the moral code as promoted by Jesus and so many others around that time.

You say Christian myth but what about the single Big Bang theory myth that atheist pin their belief system HOPES on?

Observations are confirming that the universe isn’t expanding uniformly so the scientific foundations of atheism are proving unstable and are about to totally fail.

If you let secularist loose with science then it will all go “belly up”.

[Tegularius]

Observations are confirming that the universe isn’t expanding uniformly so the scientific foundations of atheism are proving unstable and are about to totally fail.

If you let secularist loose with science then it will all go “belly up”.

There are times when theists can be a barrel of laughs.

I have no idea why atheism would fail if the universe isn't expanding uniformly or what it's got to do with atheism or theism! Science would simply force the science community to figure out why. That's what we've been doing all along to have arrived where we're at, which is nowhere near the whole journey.

The more we know, the more stringent the methodologies of discovery itself becomes. When you know nothing or nearly so, anything goes!

[Belindi]

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief in the Christian myth but he has ample justification for his belief. We should be pragmatic about the benefits of Xianity and relate Xianity solely to the moral code as promoted by Jesus and so many others around that time.

If he was more confident of his beliefs he would acknowledge the above and approach the conversation with reason rather than reflexive defensive blocks, eg. "All you can do is hope".

To reply to arguments with with same dogmatic response is, as Camus put it, philosophical suicide. Joshua deals with the absurdity of his human longing for meaning against the backdrop of a deeply uncaring world/universe by pretending that reality is not real, that it is a mere shadow play, a pale representation of a deeper reality. Theists look into the sky and see God and his works, where there are actually just the Moon, distant stars, rocks, dust, radiation and other fields, and lots and lots and lots of space.

Yet one does not need to invoke myths to be in awe of nature and reality in general. For instance, stars are, to me, one of the most mind-boggling aspects of reality, one that is criminally (IMO) taken for granted by most. The Earth a somewhat more appreciated wonder - a bloom of emerging sentience in the wilderness of space. The construction of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, communities and ecosystems are truly amazing when one takes time away from human self-obsession and actually pays them attention - without seeing it through the distorted filter of human mythology. As Douglas Adams said:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

I agree Eric should leave theology alone, as he is not good at it and he would do better to stick to a more humanistic argument if he must argue.

We don't need myths about stars and other natural events but we need myths about the human condition. We are too unsure of who we ought to be to live without stories we tell ourselves about who we are and ought to be. There's a scandal reported in today's paper about a neo Nazi man employed in a position of trust. The Nazi myth is a bad one, the Trump myth is a bad one, but there are other myths that are good ones. Xian myths are usually good myths. The core Xian myth is a good myth but is badly taught.

Eric's mentor or mentors have taught him the moral code very well, but have not explained the myth as myth.

There may be a valid objection all myths are better avoided especially when most people misunderstand symbolism. I'd rebut that objection with a further argument that supports myths by pointing out that we are the only animals that need myths and that's because all other animals know perfectly well who they are and who they ought to be.

[Joshua10]

Observations are confirming that the universe isn’t expanding uniformly so the scientific foundations of atheism are proving unstable and are about to totally fail.

If you let secularist loose with science then it will all go “belly up”.

There are times when theists can be a barrel of laughs.

I have no idea why atheism would fail if the universe isn't expanding uniformly or what it's got to do with atheism or theism! Science would simply force the science community to figure out why. That's what we've been doing all along to have arrived where we're at, which is nowhere near the whole journey.

The more we know, the more stringent the methodologies of discovery itself becomes. When you know nothing or nearly so, anything goes!

Well atheism has been claiming that the single Big Bang theory is how it all happened and this has been the foundation for their Philosophy and their hopeful belief systems for a while now.As they are being made to look fools on that score who actually is the barrel of laughs being pointed at do you think?

[Tegularius]

Observations are confirming that the universe isn’t expanding uniformly so the scientific foundations of atheism are proving unstable and are about to totally fail.

If you let secularist loose with science then it will all go “belly up”.

There are times when theists can be a barrel of laughs.

I have no idea why atheism would fail if the universe isn't expanding uniformly or what it's got to do with atheism or theism! Science would simply force the science community to figure out why. That's what we've been doing all along to have arrived where we're at, which is nowhere near the whole journey.

The more we know, the more stringent the methodologies of discovery itself becomes. When you know nothing or nearly so, anything goes!

Well atheism has been claiming that the single Big Bang theory is how it all happened and this has been the foundation for their Philosophy and their hopeful belief systems for a while now.As they are being made to look fools on that score who actually is the barrel of laughs being pointed at do you think?

Get a brain! What has atheism to do with determining whether or not a Big Bang happened? It could just as well have occurred according to theism by god's command! And since when would the BB have been the foundation for their Philosophy since atheism existed long before the BB became known or acknowledged, i.e., when the universe was understood to be static until Edwin Hubble as late as 1920 discovered it was in fact expanding. The BB was a construct, a conclusion of General Relativity which came approximately five years before.

The fools are the believers in a 2000-year-old idiot story that can't possibly be true.

[EricPH]

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief

Isn't that what 'belief' means, there is a lack of evidence.

If he was more confident of his beliefs

I am totally confident in my beliefs; I regularly find a peace that surpasses all my understanding. This happened when I was diagnosed with cancer, it happens when I stand in the middle of angry drunken fights where broken bottles are used as weapons, and more. During these traumatic events; I know I should be experiencing fear, worry and anxiety. I know beyond a doubt I could not experience this peace without a faith and trust in God.

To reply to arguments with same dogmatic response is, as Camus put it, philosophical suicide.

What do your arguments inspire you to do? Other than argue. I know what my beliefs inspire me to do.

Eric's mentor or mentors have taught him the moral code very well,

I am influenced by the voluntary moral code in the Bible; so it seems that the Bible might have benefits.

but have not explained the myth as myth.

I truthfully cannot see how life could come into existence without God. I can't see how single cell life some four billion years ago; could evolve into the life we see today without guidance from God.

Describe an unguided evolutionary path for a knee joint. Bones have to evolve over many generations; adding an incremental advantage so they can join together and add movement. If a ligament is not joined to both bones, the bones serve no function, so natural selection would have nothing to work with. If muscles and tendons are not attached at both ends, they serve no purpose, and would be rejected by natural selection. If the two bones are just flopping around and don't add to mobility, natural selection would reject them. You need one set of muscles and tendons to move bones in one direction, you need an opposing set to move them back again. The brain and nervous system would also have to evolve to direct movement. If any of these are missing there will be no intentional movement and give no advantage. On the contrary, natural selection might reject these things like an unwanted tumour.

Design is all about the detail. The skeletal system has a mass of intricate detail, all connected together to enable movement. There are many species with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. The world's greatest engineers cannot make a robotic version of ourselves with our range of movements. Most improvements to robotic engineering are as a result of intelligent design, it could not happen any other way.

[Sy Borg]

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief in the Christian myth but he has ample justification for his belief. We should be pragmatic about the benefits of Xianity and relate Xianity solely to the moral code as promoted by Jesus and so many others around that time.

If he was more confident of his beliefs he would acknowledge the above and approach the conversation with reason rather than reflexive defensive blocks, eg. "All you can do is hope".

To reply to arguments with with same dogmatic response is, as Camus put it, philosophical suicide. Joshua deals with the absurdity of his human longing for meaning against the backdrop of a deeply uncaring world/universe by pretending that reality is not real, that it is a mere shadow play, a pale representation of a deeper reality. Theists look into the sky and see God and his works, where there are actually just the Moon, distant stars, rocks, dust, radiation and other fields, and lots and lots and lots of space.

Yet one does not need to invoke myths to be in awe of nature and reality in general. For instance, stars are, to me, one of the most mind-boggling aspects of reality, one that is criminally (IMO) taken for granted by most. The Earth a somewhat more appreciated wonder - a bloom of emerging sentience in the wilderness of space. The construction of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, communities and ecosystems are truly amazing when one takes time away from human self-obsession and actually pays them attention - without seeing it through the distorted filter of human mythology. As Douglas Adams said:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

I agree Eric should leave theology alone, as he is not good at it and he would do better to stick to a more humanistic argument if he must argue.

We don't need myths about stars and other natural events but we need myths about the human condition. We are too unsure of who we ought to be to live without stories we tell ourselves about who we are and ought to be. There's a scandal reported in today's paper about a neo Nazi man employed in a position of trust. The Nazi myth is a bad one, the Trump myth is a bad one, but there are other myths that are good ones. Xian myths are usually good myths. The core Xian myth is a good myth but is badly taught.

Eric's mentor or mentors have taught him the moral code very well, but have not explained the myth as myth.

There may be a valid objection all myths are better avoided especially when most people misunderstand symbolism. I'd rebut that objection with a further argument that supports myths by pointing out that we are the only animals that need myths and that's because all other animals know perfectly well who they are and who they ought to be.

If that is the case, then why do you and I know how to conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner without need of myths?

It appears that the need for myths is an indictment of a society's education system. Where inequality is high, not everyone is appropriately educated. To prevent those whose educational needs were knowingly neglected from running wild, they are controlled with myths.

[Tegularius]

Per title which doesn't make sense. If one could prove the existence of god you wouldn't need to believe it. But something so obvious, almost certainly, would already have been pointed out by someone.

[LuckyR]

Per title which doesn't make sense. If one could prove the existence of god you wouldn't need to believe it. But something so obvious, almost certainly, would already have been pointed out by someone.

Very true. The reason to believe in gods (if you're inclined to do that sort of thing) is specifically because the existance of gods is impossible to prove.

[Belindi]

Eric does not have the evidence for his belief in the Christian myth but he has ample justification for his belief. We should be pragmatic about the benefits of Xianity and relate Xianity solely to the moral code as promoted by Jesus and so many others around that time.

If he was more confident of his beliefs he would acknowledge the above and approach the conversation with reason rather than reflexive defensive blocks, eg. "All you can do is hope".

To reply to arguments with with same dogmatic response is, as Camus put it, philosophical suicide. Joshua deals with the absurdity of his human longing for meaning against the backdrop of a deeply uncaring world/universe by pretending that reality is not real, that it is a mere shadow play, a pale representation of a deeper reality. Theists look into the sky and see God and his works, where there are actually just the Moon, distant stars, rocks, dust, radiation and other fields, and lots and lots and lots of space.

Yet one does not need to invoke myths to be in awe of nature and reality in general. For instance, stars are, to me, one of the most mind-boggling aspects of reality, one that is criminally (IMO) taken for granted by most. The Earth a somewhat more appreciated wonder - a bloom of emerging sentience in the wilderness of space. The construction of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, communities and ecosystems are truly amazing when one takes time away from human self-obsession and actually pays them attention - without seeing it through the distorted filter of human mythology. As Douglas Adams said:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

I agree Eric should leave theology alone, as he is not good at it and he would do better to stick to a more humanistic argument if he must argue.

We don't need myths about stars and other natural events but we need myths about the human condition. We are too unsure of who we ought to be to live without stories we tell ourselves about who we are and ought to be. There's a scandal reported in today's paper about a neo Nazi man employed in a position of trust. The Nazi myth is a bad one, the Trump myth is a bad one, but there are other myths that are good ones. Xian myths are usually good myths. The core Xian myth is a good myth but is badly taught.

Eric's mentor or mentors have taught him the moral code very well, but have not explained the myth as myth.

There may be a valid objection all myths are better avoided especially when most people misunderstand symbolism. I'd rebut that objection with a further argument that supports myths by pointing out that we are the only animals that need myths and that's because all other animals know perfectly well who they are and who they ought to be.

If that is the case, then why do you and I know how to conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner without need of myths?

It appears that the need for myths is an indictment of a society's education system. Where inequality is high, not everyone is appropriately educated. To prevent those whose educational needs were knowingly neglected from running wild, they are controlled with myths.

I still believe in cosmic order: that each event is caused by the mass of other events. Some people such as Eric go further and attribute cosmic order to a personal God Who intended to make it so.

Cosmic order is a myth not because it's a false belief but because its an unprovable belief. Cosmic order is the master myth and other myths such as the myth of Christ(or the Windsors' right to be monarchs-----from the sublime to the ridiculous) depend on the myth of cosmic order.

I was taught the myth of Christ as a child and as an educated adult adapted it to the same moral code that the myth of Christ explains, but with the authority of reason instead of a supernatual order of being.

Most people today believe the myth that humans are reasonable and mainly reasoning beings. The myth of human reason may be about to be abandoned when climate change follows upon our disrespect for nature.

[Sy Borg]

If he was more confident of his beliefs he would acknowledge the above and approach the conversation with reason rather than reflexive defensive blocks, eg. "All you can do is hope".

To reply to arguments with with same dogmatic response is, as Camus put it, philosophical suicide. Joshua deals with the absurdity of his human longing for meaning against the backdrop of a deeply uncaring world/universe by pretending that reality is not real, that it is a mere shadow play, a pale representation of a deeper reality. Theists look into the sky and see God and his works, where there are actually just the Moon, distant stars, rocks, dust, radiation and other fields, and lots and lots and lots of space.

Yet one does not need to invoke myths to be in awe of nature and reality in general. For instance, stars are, to me, one of the most mind-boggling aspects of reality, one that is criminally (IMO) taken for granted by most. The Earth a somewhat more appreciated wonder - a bloom of emerging sentience in the wilderness of space. The construction of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, communities and ecosystems are truly amazing when one takes time away from human self-obsession and actually pays them attention - without seeing it through the distorted filter of human mythology. As Douglas Adams said:

I agree Eric should leave theology alone, as he is not good at it and he would do better to stick to a more humanistic argument if he must argue.

We don't need myths about stars and other natural events but we need myths about the human condition. We are too unsure of who we ought to be to live without stories we tell ourselves about who we are and ought to be. There's a scandal reported in today's paper about a neo Nazi man employed in a position of trust. The Nazi myth is a bad one, the Trump myth is a bad one, but there are other myths that are good ones. Xian myths are usually good myths. The core Xian myth is a good myth but is badly taught.

Eric's mentor or mentors have taught him the moral code very well, but have not explained the myth as myth.

There may be a valid objection all myths are better avoided especially when most people misunderstand symbolism. I'd rebut that objection with a further argument that supports myths by pointing out that we are the only animals that need myths and that's because all other animals know perfectly well who they are and who they ought to be.

If that is the case, then why do you and I know how to conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner without need of myths?

It appears that the need for myths is an indictment of a society's education system. Where inequality is high, not everyone is appropriately educated. To prevent those whose educational needs were knowingly neglected from running wild, they are controlled with myths.

I still believe in cosmic order: that each event is caused by the mass of other events. Some people such as Eric go further and attribute cosmic order to a personal God Who intended to make it so.

Cosmic order is a myth not because it's a false belief but because its an unprovable belief. Cosmic order is the master myth and other myths such as the myth of Christ(or the Windsors' right to be monarchs-----from the sublime to the ridiculous) depend on the myth of cosmic order.

I was taught the myth of Christ as a child and as an educated adult adapted it to the same moral code that the myth of Christ explains, but with the authority of reason instead of a supernatual order of being.

Most people today believe the myth that humans are reasonable and mainly reasoning beings. The myth of human reason may be about to be abandoned when climate change follows upon our disrespect for nature.

The morality of Christianity is really just re-badging normal societal cooperation as stemming from religion. It did not. The morality existed first and Christianity took credit for it. Theists did the same with marriage, with the first recorded marriage being thousands of years BCE, while Christians pretend that marriage is a inherently Christian institution.

Ultimately, morality is a matter of empathy and pragmatism. Life is easier when you are trusted, and empathy for others is often reciprocated. Why do chimps groom others when they could kill them when they are off guard and eat them? The same reason that so many humans are usually relaxed and cooperative with each other.