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

[Dclements]

It is possible that Christianity at one time really cared about helping the poor and better mankind, but since it is easier to get money from rich people who want to be 'saved'; it was likely a given that trying to save the poor would have to be put on the back burner when money became the main priority for the church. Maybe if the church actually tried harder to help people maybe things might not be the way they are, but since the church has only so much and priest are as human/hedonistic as the rest of us are, expecting them to really do anything may be too much. Even if the point of the church is to 'save' people both in this world and the 'next'.

To governments, corporations and religions, the numbers they reduce us to are compared quarter by quarter, financial year by financial year. We are just resources and numbers to them, of very low import.

In order to survive organizations have to look out for themselves over all else, even if the purpose of the organization is supposed to about helping others. In order to do this organizations both train people in them to look out for it and only promote those who have both enough managerial skills and the mind set to put the organizations needs above all else. In the US corporations are treated as an individual entity and given many of the same rights and protection as a person has in the eyes of the law. So your are right in that we are merely resources, but I think a more accurate way of describing the problem is that today we live in a plutocracy more than a democracy.

Religions, like all other institutions, are in it for themselves and have little interest in individual humans unless they pose a threat. The recent royal commission here into institutional abuse showed how church office bearers routinely put the institution of the church ahead of the interests of its abused children. Even today Cardinal George Pell remains secure in his senior Vatican job, despite admitting to turning away a boy who complained to him about being molested. Institutions are powerful so its main champions tend to be granted amnesty in situations where equivalent individuals would be prosecuted.

I think the problem may partly be that it has always been this way but nobody in the past really did anything about it or was willing to talk about it. Everyone wants to keep pretending that the emperor has cloths on in the fear of what might happen if some person or kid speaks out and everyone at once realizes they have been had. Part of the problem may be that the people in too often in authority to check on others misbehaving are the ones that are misbehaving themselves (or will suffer negative consequences if the truth comes out), and there is nobody for anyone to go to other than them when things go wrong. Or as one dark/adult like comic book put it "Who watches the Watchmen?"; with the Watchmen being a bunch of superheroes.

At least now a days, there is a little more oversight than it use to be on things like child abuse; which I kind of know about because I was physically/mentally abused during the time that nobody really wanted to do anything about it. And of course one of the person that abused me just so happen to be both an extreme alcoholic and 'religous' person at the same time.

An interesting thought is to consider the grip on Pell's mind for him to be so inhuman as to turn away a molested boy asking him for help. That decision to turn the boy away was truly inhuman - institutional, not human. Pell was acting as its human vessel, protecting the institution at all costs, thinking it to be "bigger than any individual", seemingly including abused innocents.

People can be trained/brainwashed to be inhuman or put a groups needs over the rights of other people. Think of it this way, in the army there are people that are unable to shoot at others even if their life depends on it. The simplest way to deal with it is have new recruits put in situations where they have to shoot back (or just soot at a living person if that is possible) and see how they handle it. Of course if they have fired an actual gun or rifle often enough it may be a bit easier, but shooting at another living person is something we have be socially conditioned NOT to do and we need to be reconditioned if we ever have to do a job where we have to shoot back. I don't know the actual percentage, but there are enough people that can never do it that it is a real problem for those that recruit soldiers and/or cops.

I guess I could put it this way if you take somewhere between 100 to a 1000 potential people. Put them through a program that both motivates certain behavior (and or attributes) and excludes those that are not good enough. Collect those that remain and put them through another program doing the same thing but for different behavior/attributes and another program if need be, and another program if need be. Eventually you can end up with something like military black ops, something like army rangers,spin doctors/con men, specialists, fanatics, etc that can think and do nearly anything that an organization needs them to do, so it isn't that surprising that an church organization would have head priests that put the churches needs over the people in their own flock.

It appears that an organisation can reach a certain size where it becomes an entity unto itself. Its policies will increasingly reflect its own priority over any of its individuals, each of whom becomes increasingly replaceable.

I agree, but I believe that is what is expected to happen in a plutocratic/Machiavellian society.

[Dark Matter]

What have any of those things got to do with God?

[Belindi]

Which god is the title supposed to refer to? E.G. Jehovah of the Jewish Old Testament, or Jesus the avatar of the immanent god of the New Testament, or Krishna the avatar of Lord Vishnu?

The question makes sense if it refers to the Jewish Jehovah who made out of nothing all that is. All that is includes human sinners and Jehovah deliberately created human sinners (nearly all of us)so that they could be punished after their deaths to all eternity. That is what the idea of the OT Jewish Jehovah does wrong.

Jesus and Krishna are massive improvements on Jehovah.

[Dclements]

It is clear that atheists here do not reject God, but an image of a being alongside other beings. They fear appearing as weak, insecure and irrational, so they project those feelings onto believers to convince themselves that they are not being foolish. This kind of projection and stereotyping would be laughable if wasn't so sad.

Your argument is both a hasty generalization fallacy and a straw man argument: it is a given that not ALL atheist think the way that that you accuse them of so it is also a given that you are misrepresenting their beliefs in order to undermine an argument that is easier to attack than the one they actually believe.

While it is true that SOME atheists may think the way your accusing them of (there is likely enough of us that one or two my be misguided enough to think that way) and there might SOME (again even one or two of us) that make similar hasty generalization fallacies and a straw man arguments as you have, such issues do not give you an excuse to fill your own argument with such fallacies yourself.

Knowing God shatters the boundary between inside and outside. Therefore, to affirm God's existence is as atheistic as to deny it. Skeptics can express doubt by reducing God to an idea and make their accusations about this kind of “knowingness,” but so what?

I think you are either misunderstanding many atheists position, misrepresenting your own position or both. However again just in your last paragraph you are making another hasty generalization fallacy since it is a given that not ALL atheist think the way that you believe that they think.

I know this is asking a lot but in the future try not to accuse ALL people in a very large group of thinking in a certain way since it is next to impossible for you to really know what they are thinking. In fact even knowing what a single individual forum member is really thinking is likely beyond your capabilities (since it is out of reach of most forum members), so it is best to be careful if you try doing that. Doing this would be for your own good more than mine since it would help make your position more logical/rational in future arguments..

-- Updated December 28th, 2016, 12:36 pm to add the following --

One must come to reject the idea of God before they can know God. Those who claim to have past affiliations with beliefs are on the right track in that sense, but in another they are like a fish looking for the water in which it swims. Seeing only their own beliefs, they identify with them and call it the water in which they swim.

Or in other words you are saying it is a given that Christians are 'right' and atheists are 'wrong' which of course is a non sequitur fallacy. An easy counter to your argument is that there are other religions and systems of beliefs that are just as 'good' as Christianity, even if such religions and systems of belief do NOT include believing and worshiping 'God'.

And of course this argument continues with your hasty generalization fallacies you made earlier. While it isn't a perfect way of looking at it, knowing that there are so many theist and so many atheist (or atheistic yet still religious people) that as a rule of thumb there has to be some 'good' and 'bad' people in each group so what religion or system of beliefs I person subscribes to do not make it a given that they are 'good' and 'bad' person; it is the 'additional beliefs' that a person has that determines that.

-- Updated December 28th, 2016, 12:49 pm to add the following --

This brings to mind words from the classic, The Cloud of Unknowing: "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

Which is not that different from what Søren Kierkegaard said in Fear and Trembling about infinite resignation and so called 'knights of faith':

Kierkegaard says, "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith."[6] He spoke about this kind of consciousness in an earlier book. "There comes a moment in a person's life when immediacy is ripe, so to speak, and when the spirit requires a higher form, when it wants to lay hold of itself as spirit. As immediate spirit, a person is bound up with all the earthly life, and now spirit wants to gather itself together out of this dispersion, so to speak, and to transfigure itself in itself; the personality wants to become conscious in its eternal validity. If this does not happen, if the movement is halted, if it is repressed, then depression sets in."[7] Once Abraham became conscious of his eternal validity he arrived at the door of faith and acted according to his faith. In this action he became a knight of faith.[8] In other words, one must give up all his or her earthly possessions in infinite resignation and must also be willing to give up whatever it is that he or she loves more than God"

Or in other words one must give up not only almost all material possessions but a great deal of sanity and personal perseverance to be a true 'believer' and knight of faith' that Kierkegaard is talking about. But the catch to this is that most Christians are either unable and/or unwilling to do this themselves, while even people who do NOT believe in any Abrahamic religion or even 'God' can become 'knights of faith' for other causes other than 'God'. In short, this whole monopoly Christianity has on 'faith' and 'knights of faith'(aka. extreme 'faith') is a farce since it can be done through other religions and systems of belief. Or as they put it in Taoism 'there is always more than one path for one to find THE WAY'; which is one of the reasons I really like studying eastern religion/philosophy.

[Felix]

Greta: Like many, I never progressed beyond beginner meditation - TM with either mantras or focus on breath.

Greta, the personal consciousness mega-shifts you've mentioned here in the forum (I forgot what you call them) were not initiated by any sort of meditation practice?

It's unfortunate that, thanks largely to TM, most people think meditation is about repeating a mantra, which to me is just another form of obsessive thinking.

Toadny: I did a lot of this kind of thing when I was younger, until I realised it is a lot of pretentious ********.

So is most thinking, one needs to separate the wheat germ from the chaff.

Belindi: Jesus and Krishna are massive improvements on Jehovah.

Yes, the Gnostic Christians considered Jehovah, son of Sophia, to be a half-mad demigod.

[Dark Matter]

It is clear that atheists here do not reject God, but an image of a being alongside other beings. They fear appearing as weak, insecure and irrational, so they project those feelings onto believers to convince themselves that they are not being foolish. This kind of projection and stereotyping would be laughable if wasn't so sad.

Your argument is both a hasty generalization fallacy and a straw man argument: it is a given that not ALL atheist think the way that that you accuse them of so it is also a given that you are misrepresenting their beliefs in order to undermine an argument that is easier to attack than the one they actually believe.

While it is true that SOME atheists may think the way your accusing them of (there is likely enough of us that one or two my be misguided enough to think that way) and there might SOME (again even one or two of us) that make similar hasty generalization fallacies and a straw man arguments as you have, such issues do not give you an excuse to fill your own argument with such fallacies yourself.

Pot...kettle.

I think you are either misunderstanding many atheists position, misrepresenting your own position or both. However again just in your last paragraph you are making another hasty generalization fallacy since it is a given that not ALL atheist think the way that you believe that they think.

Any example of atheists thinking differently?

I know this is asking a lot but in the future try not to accuse ALL people in a very large group of thinking in a certain way since it is next to impossible for you to really know what they are thinking. In fact even knowing what a single individual forum member is really thinking is likely beyond your capabilities (since it is out of reach of most forum members), so it is best to be careful if you try doing that. Doing this would be for your own good more than mine since it would help make your position more logical/rational in future arguments.

How about yu not misrepresenting what I said by omitting the word "here"?

Or in other words you are saying it is a given that Christians are 'right' and atheists are 'wrong' which of course is a non sequitur fallacy. An easy counter to your argument is that there are other religions and systems of beliefs that are just as 'good' as Christianity, even if such religions and systems of belief do NOT include believing and worshiping 'God'.

And of course this argument continues with your hasty generalization fallacies you made earlier. While it isn't a perfect way of looking at it, knowing that there are so many theist and so many atheist (or atheistic yet still religious people) that as a rule of thumb there has to be some 'good' and 'bad' people in each group so what religion or system of beliefs I person subscribes to do not make it a given that they are 'good' and 'bad' person; it is the 'additional beliefs' that a person has that determines that.

Is that what I said? Or are you projecting?

Or in other words one must give up not only almost all material possessions but a great deal of sanity and personal perseverance to be a true 'believer' and knight of faith' that Kierkegaard is talking about. But the catch to this is that most Christians are either unable and/or unwilling to do this themselves, while even people who do NOT believe in any Abrahamic religion or even 'God' can become 'knights of faith' for other causes other than 'God'. In short, this whole monopoly Christianity has on 'faith' and 'knights of faith'(aka. extreme 'faith') is a farce since it can be done through other religions and systems of belief. Or as they put it in Taoism 'there is always more than one path for one to find THE WAY'; which is one of the reasons I really like studying eastern religion/philosophy.

I've read about a dozen translations of the Tao Te Ching and none of them said anything like 'there is always more than one path for one to find THE WAY.' Are you referring instead to what has been called 'the pathless land'?

According to Kierkegaard, what is a human being? Do you know, or do you want me to tell you?

[Sy Borg]

Greta: Like many, I never progressed beyond beginner meditation - TM with either mantras or focus on breath.

Greta, the personal consciousness mega-shifts you've mentioned here in the forum (I forgot what you call them) were not initiated by any sort of meditation practice?

It's unfortunate that, thanks largely to TM, most people think meditation is about repeating a mantra, which to me is just another form of obsessive thinking.

Alas no, Felix. I'd like to claim come control but the two peak experiences were pure dumb luck. The only common factor behind them is, just prior to each, I was feeling unusually happy and content.

I can see the point of mantra meditation - to slow and calm the mind and to practice focus on one thing - but you are right that the common conception of meditation in the west is a relaxation exercise where one clears the mind, taking a break from life's clutter. Since I'm not much chop at clearing my mind, I instead engage in contemplative exercises, some of which ends up on this board.

-- Updated 28 Dec 2016, 16:02 to add the following --

What have any of those things got to do with God?

If the problems of life have nothing to do with God, then what does?

-- Updated 28 Dec 2016, 16:19 to add the following --

Any example of atheists thinking differently?

There are none. This is because non believers are not human beings but manufactured robots in a Chinese factory, and they would all be utterly and exactly alike if not for shonky Chinese CQ. Silly question, silly answer.

Just a couple of weeks ago atheists were parsed on this forum, with a splinter category - apatheists (not interested in the claims of ancient mythology, including the Abrahamics). They are probably the majority. Most are not interested and it's hard to blame them. To those not interested in religion, it's easy to have the impression that the institutions are purely designed for machos to keep women and gays under the thumb.

Christians also come in different types - from mindless fundamentalists through to sophisticated pantheists or panentheists, and variously interested and disinterested types in between. It seems that on forums atheists, agnostics and theists alike spend most of the time trying to extricate themselves from the stereotypes of their "tribe".

[Felix]

Alas no, Felix. I'd like to claim some control but the two peak experiences were pure dumb luck.

In deep meditation, meditating just happens, the credit-taker has left the building.

It was actually the Subud "latihan" (a group meditation practice) that made this clear to me. If you can get past the religious aspect of Subud (a big hurdle for some) and give the latihan a chance, it can open closed doors in one's psyche, at least it did for me. You will of course encounter the evangelists of Subud - as in any organization.

[Sy Borg]

In order to survive organizations have to look out for themselves over all else, even if the purpose of the organization is supposed to about helping others. In order to do this organizations both train people in them to look out for it and only promote those who have both enough managerial skills and the mind set to put the organizations needs above all else. In the US corporations are treated as an individual entity and given many of the same rights and protection as a person has in the eyes of the law. So your are right in that we are merely resources, but I think a more accurate way of describing the problem is that today we live in a plutocracy more than a democracy.

Many have pointed out that the education system is ever less about education and more about producing effective cogs for The Machine. The process by economic rationalisation - stripping away the soul of everything, treating emotions as an expensive and pointless extra - is the inevitable result of seeking ever greater efficiencies.

There's the rub, rationalisation has an optimal level; it can be overdone to detrimental results. At what point is that? When it makes a lot of people miserable. This applies as much to companies as it does to the arts or to ideology. Rationalisation of a personal ideology can lead to either religious fundamentalism or to strict materialist reductionism, neither of which appear to be in line with reality.

So this is what humans do - we are compelled by the need to survive to aggregate together in ever larger groups that reach a point where they make people less happy citylab.com/housing/2016/06/the-price-o ... es/487823/

the study finds that denser counties tend to have less happy residents, even when controlling for factors like greater crime and poverty. While these variables do weaken the relationship between density and unhappiness, the effect remains negative and significant. This leads the authors to conclude that size and density—what they call “the defining features of cities”—are associated with greater unhappiness. Even if cities were to reduce their levels of crime, poverty, or unemployment, urban residents would still be less happy than those living elsewhere. In this way, the study notes, “cities act like a magnifying glass, bringing out the best and the worst in us.”

None of what is happening today is by human design. If given a choice we'd be living comfortably with enough work to stimulate but not enough to harm, in touch with nature but also with mod cons, with a functional and happy family and friends who are all doing well. We would not be crammed in cities with financial pressures, growing work pressures and often dysfunctional relationships. Only a tiny minority experience a life of freedom and functional relationships; it can feel as though the whole point of everyone else existing is to allow these few lucky, and usually gifted, people to experience the best that life has to offer.

No matter which way you look at it, life is ultimately a b1tch and then you die, and that's true even in the best possible scenario and each of us enjoys a blissful afterlife. The journey of life on Earth is torrid for most and often ends with a burst of intense suffering. That's just fact. Thanks to Whitedragon for starting this thread and allowing some of us to air our complaints to Management :)

[Dark Matter]

There are none. This is because non believers are not human beings but manufactured robots in a Chinese factory, and they would all be utterly and exactly alike if not for shonky Chinese CQ. Silly question, silly answer.

Well, that certainly explains your behavior.

Anyway, after all the stereotyping you and others have been doing, I find it amusing that you get upset when the tables are turned.

-- Updated December 28th, 2016, 7:48 pm to add the following --

To repeat what René Descartes said:

I will only say, in general, that all which the atheists commonly allege in favor of the non-existence of God, arises continually from one or other of these two things, namely, either the ascription of human affections to Deity, or the undue attribution to our minds of so much vigor and wisdom that we may essay to determine and comprehend both what God can and ought to do; hence all that is alleged by them will occasion us no difficulty, provided only we keep in remembrance that our minds must be considered finite, while Deity is incomprehensible and infinite.

Show me where his assessment is wrong.

[Ormond]

Dark Matter, I thought you have some interesting points, but you're burying them in a lot of pointless head butting. Of course Baba Ormond the Ornery would never do something like that.

You said...

Knowing God shatters the boundary between inside and outside. Therefore, to affirm God's existence is as atheistic as to deny it.

More in this direction please.

The head butting is kinda boring though. Maybe less of that? Just my one little vote...

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

To repeat what René Descartes said:

I will only say, in general, that all which the atheists commonly allege in favor of the non-existence of God, arises continually from one or other of these two things, namely, either the ascription of human affections to Deity, or the undue attribution to our minds of so much vigor and wisdom that we may essay to determine and comprehend both what God can and ought to do; hence all that is alleged by them will occasion us no difficulty, provided only we keep in remembrance that our minds must be considered finite, while Deity is incomprehensible and infinite.

Show me where his assessment is wrong.

Post #56:

In the Meditations Descartes ascribes both perfection and goodness to God. These ideas, according to Descartes, are to be found in our minds. In other words, they are human affections that he ascribes to Deity. As to what God can and ought to do he claims that he cannot be deceived about everything because that would contrary to his goodness. He goes on to construct his Deity from the fact of his own existence, that is, with the vigor and wisdom of his own mind. He goes on to prove the existence of God based on the ascription of perfection, the idea of which he claims can only come from a being that is perfect. A philosopher of his stature surely knows how weak and unfounded this claim is. If we reject the claim that the idea of perfection must come from something that is perfect and see through his necessary defensive rhetoric we are left with Descartes’ veiled declaration of his own atheism.

[Fanman]

Ormond:

That's true, but only part of the story. Christianity has not prospered for 2,000 years all over the world because of pie in the sky promises that no one has ever been able to verify. What fuels Christianity and keeps it going is that love works in a person's daily life, here and now. 

But of course philosophy forums have no interest in such subjects... 

Good point. You're not wrong in saying that Christianity has practical applications and has had efficacy in it's message about love, as well as those promises it makes in relation to an afterlife. I think its a blend of the two that makes it continually so successful as an ideology, but I think it does pray on hope, especially the hope of those in terrible situations. As you say, if it were merely about the promises it makes of a blissfully happy afterlife – it wouldn't have had such longevity.

Ok, cool, good, but why stop there? Why not continue and use critical thinking to dispel the atheist myths too? If you like this dispelling of myths business, why not keep going? Why settle for just one? 

Atheist myths? I think that atheistic “beliefs” are strongly supported by evidence or at least evidence-based. As you know, its problematic to dispel something that for all accounts can be proven or demonstrated. I think there are atheistic theories that can be questioned from a logical stand-point like the big bang, due to factors like it being the "first cause," and how to eliminate the problem of infinite-regression/cause and effect. Something empirical definitely occurred which resulted in our universe but what exactly occurred is not known for certain. In my opinion, atheism is built on pretty firm foundations. Well, as firm as can be had considering the fact that we're fallible . Critical thinking allows one to find contradictions, there may be some contradictions in atheistic theories, but in my experience, they are only contradicted by anecdotal accounts; not massive holes in their logic. As we have it, the evidence supports atheism, there's no empirical evidence for the existence of God or any other supernatural entities. Does this mean that they don't exist, I don't know. I find that relying on our senses and human capabilities to interpret the nature of reality is a double-edged sword. In that its a mistake to rely on them completely, and a mistake to rule them out completely.

[Sy Borg]

It is clear that atheists here do not reject God, but an image of a being alongside other beings. They fear appearing as weak, insecure and irrational, so they project those feelings onto believers to convince themselves that they are not being foolish. This kind of projection and stereotyping would be laughable if wasn't so sad.

Note: Fanman, Ormond and I are all agnostic. Not every non theist is an atheist.

So many Christians have claimed that that they could not live without their faith in God, it's a cliche. You cannot reasonably deny this. Existential desperation is part of the human condition and belief is simply one response to the situation. Our responses to the difficulties and dangers of living are individual, but they can perhaps be broadly grouped:

1) Reassurance - anxiety about death reduced by belief in a happy ending

2) Procrastination and distraction - anxiety about death reduced by ignoring the problem until it arrives

3) Surrender - anxiety about death reduced by fatalism

4) Logic - anxiety about death reduced by reasoning.

No doubt there are others.

Knowing God shatters the boundary between inside and outside. Therefore, to affirm God's existence is as atheistic as to deny it. Skeptics can express doubt by reducing God to an idea and make their accusations about this kind of “knowingness,” but so what?

Contemplating nature can also break down the sense of inside/outside, understanding that those terms pertain to a dynamic and subjective concept, like the self.

As I've said before, we can't force ourselves to believe things, except by self-brainwashing. In some circles, this is expected. On the other hand, it's easy for anyone who wants to believe to engage in display behaviour that gives them "membership to the club". Even the very devout are known to have a crisis of faith, and some of them simply move on to a new phase in their life. Others might fake their faith in the hope that it returns - here we have the tension between inside and outside, which you referred to earlier. Display behaviour v authenticity.

Whatever we may believe, not believe or not know, we can either express what we feel inside, or we can try to create an impression in others.

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter, I thought you have some interesting points, but you're burying them in a lot of pointless head butting. Of course Baba Ormond the Ornery would never do something like that.

You said...

Knowing God shatters the boundary between inside and outside. Therefore, to affirm God's existence is as atheistic as to deny it.

More in this direction please.

The head butting is kinda boring though. Maybe less of that? Just my one little vote...

Fair enough.

Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.

Put more simply, a human being is the relating of a relation -- a synthesis of the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. We cannot define ourselves, let alone the Whole, without distorting the truth or disintegrating Life. The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 1:56 am to add the following --

The same sentiment has been expressed in many ways and many places. Here's a few:

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)

“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.” (Meister Eckhart)

“God is an infinite circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” (Nicholas of Cusa/Hermes Trismegistus)

Tat tvam asi (Thou art that: Hindu phrase.)

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 2:04 am to add the following --

The irony is, atheists giving their ideas of what God did wrong are really talking about their own failings.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 4:16 am to add the following --

Dark Matter:

To repeat what René Descartes said:


(Nested quote removed.)


Show me where his assessment is wrong.

Post #56:

In the Meditations Descartes ascribes both perfection and goodness to God. These ideas, according to Descartes, are to be found in our minds. In other words, they are human affections that he ascribes to Deity. As to what God can and ought to do he claims that he cannot be deceived about everything because that would contrary to his goodness. He goes on to construct his Deity from the fact of his own existence, that is, with the vigor and wisdom of his own mind. He goes on to prove the existence of God based on the ascription of perfection, the idea of which he claims can only come from a being that is perfect. A philosopher of his stature surely knows how weak and unfounded this claim is. If we reject the claim that the idea of perfection must come from something that is perfect and see through his necessary defensive rhetoric we are left with Descartes’ veiled declaration of his own atheism.

Straw man. Where was his assessment wrong in the quote? It's nothing different than what I've said time and time again. Why don't you also quote me when I said Descartes was wrong about a lot of things but right about his assessment?