Yes, I’m not speaking about any particular mythology, or even necessarily God. (I did use dead grandma to make the same point.) I’m saying if there was any unexplainable physical event someone experienced (maybe unexplained because they were stupid), but unexplained by all reason they can muster, AND, that fantastical miracle forced into their face came with words and a message, AND those words showed a meaning to that person that was bigger than they knew before - then they might say “no wonder the bush didn’t burn, or the phoenix rose from the ashes. Something even more than all of this happened here. I am now included in this new meaning, by hearing this new message.”

You don’t have to say more here. The point is made. Amadeus gets it and rejects it.

I do think I’d need a pretty big, crazy miracle, with some trusted witnesses around maybe to compare notes, before I delved to deeply into the message. But I’m just guessing how I’d be listening to a “sprit” or something. — Fire Ologist

If you are interested in how deductive logic 'emerges' from neural networks, you might like G. Spencer Brown's The Laws of Form — unenlightened

Retrospective accuracy is not a commonly recognized scientific term or concept in the field of science or research. It does not have a specific definition or understanding within the scientific community.
However, based on the words themselves, "retrospective accuracy" could potentially refer to the accuracy of information or data collected or analyzed after an event or study has taken place, looking back in time. This could involve the evaluation of past records, memories, or historical data to assess the accuracy of previous assessments or predictions. It could be a way of determining how well something was predicted or measured in hindsight. — Josh Alfred

So my point was there may be more reason to think a burning bush was an impossible miracle of God, not because the bush burned but wasn’t burned, but because of the words that were communicated. Something, to that person (not you, I don’t know what words might give you pause, because I’m not God), something to that person brought awe and fear and inspiration and power, something overwhelming making one willing to say God, just because of the words spoken. — Fire Ologist

The United states likes to think of itself one of the strongest democracies. But it does not rank with Europe, Canada and Australia, as much as with India, Brazil and Indonesia. — Banno

Sis, it is not an emergency. There are always enough competing selfish interests to balance things out. — L'éléphant

am currently watching Fareed Zakaria's Sunday program on CNN. During his "Fareed's Take" segment at the beginning of the show, Zakaria discusses religiosity and political events in the US and elsewhere.

It's worth checking out for people interested in this topic. — wonderer1

Doesn’t mean it might not still be a hallucination or just a dream, or a fantasy wish, but if what was said really meant something, and hit home to you, and it was new, you might have to wonder about God. — Fire Ologist

Notice the contradiction in "Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace." Does soft despotism give the illusion of control or induce fear?

Sure, there were mistakes made in education, as there were in health, economics, International relations. None of these are determinative of the course of history.

Perhaps the problem is a turning against 'merca's own expression of liberal values. Or were they ever broadly understood? — Banno

There are well known problems with historicism. That civilisations collapse is a Western notion, an expectation that we must reenact the fall of Rome. The collapse of the British Empire was felt keenly in the decline of Great Britain. It did not bring with it social collapse in Australia, Canada, India, and Africa, these nations seeing it instead mostly as an opportunity. The end of the 'mercan hegemony will similarly have the greatest impact inside that nation. — Banno

am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi? — ENOAH

Democracy is underpinned by a liberal system of values. that system was distorted to individualism and greed in the Seventies, and has been exposed to oligarchic alternatives with the opening of trade and travel since then. Libertarian absurdities abound, community institutions are underfunded, the common wealth has been striped to feed private wealth. — Banno

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.[1]

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace. — Wikipedia

Book Overview
*Immoderate Greatness* explains how a civilization's very magnitude conspires against it to cause downfall. Civilizations are hard-wired for self-destruction. They travel an arc from initial success to terminal decay and ultimate collapse due to intrinsic, inescapable biophysical limits combined with an inexorable trend toward moral decay and practical failure. Because our own civilization is global, its collapse will also be global, as well as uniquely devastating owing to the immensity of its population, complexity, and consumption. To avoid the common fate of all past civilizations will require a radical change in our ethos-to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness-lest we precipitate a dark age in which the arts and adornments of civilization are partially or completely lost. This description may be from another edition of this product. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/immoderate-greatness-why-civilizations-fail/9180382/item/7370178/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_scarce_%2410_%2450&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwwr6wBhBcEiwAfMEQszmao1Nvr8VQL1R4emGu6cGu0hSDDjBWtbAQhuk2cgBNivMVNrFS6RoCo-MQAvD_BwE#idiq=7370178&edition=8527883

There is a tone of 'Mercan chauvinism in your posts. But your democracy is broken by far more than a touch of religious thinking. — Banno

↪Hanover, ↪Athena asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. ↪Ciceronianus suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue. — Banno

good is rewarded, evil is punished, — schopenhauer1

Yes that is an ominous change in the lexicon.

Ideology enforcement is what I was ranting about. Having an ideology isn’t in itself bad. It is good actually. Encourages people to think if all goes well. At worst it is imposed on others or forced in society. Theron lies the problem — Metaphyzik

This goes along with the uniquely Israelite spin on a god who protects his people if they maintain their faith in him. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, there is no way you can read that text and not come away with the impetus of it, which is that faithfulness in God is what is necessary. — schopenhauer1

Mao tse dong and the cultural revolution. Millions starve when farmers were supposed to do their own industry, and city workers grow their own crops. — Metaphyzik

IMHO there is no more problem with one religion more than another…. They are all capable of the worst traits imaginable. — Metaphyzik

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌidēˈäləjē,ˌīdēˈäləjē/
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar:
beliefs
ideas
ideals
principles
doctrine
creed
credo
teaching
dogma
theory
thesis
tenets
canon(s)
conviction(s)
persuasion
opinions
position
ethics
morals
2.
ARCHAIC
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. — Oxford Languages

You've not described the decision process of either atheists or theists. — Hanover

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath of ethics historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath — Wikipedia

The Athenian Oath was recited by the citizens of Athens, Greece, more than 2,000 years ago. It is frequently referenced by civic leaders in modern times as a timeless code of civic responsibility.

“We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this City not only, not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.” — Augustaks

The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant.
— Ciceronianus

This is a feature that many faithful are loath to claim. Fundamentalists (whatever faith) not only claim it, they get high on it. — BC

Do Atheists all not agree as to what is moral and yet still proclaim to know it too? — Hanover

Not caring how your words affect me, just got added to you saying I lied. If you want to interact with me you will have to do better. You know, cause and effect. I am not going to play with you if I don't like how you play. Is that an objective moral? — AmadeusD

I doubt it. The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so (a felicitous bit of rhyming, if I don't say so myself). — Ciceronianus

No? Isn't everybody trying to "rule America"? Isn't it becoming commonly accepted that so-called "liberal neutrality" was always farcical? There is a real sense in which progressivism quickened the demise of liberalism, but in this it only quickened the inevitable. Historically and in truth a separation between religion and politics is altogether artificial, and where separation is enforced quasi-religious ideologies sprout like weeds. — Leontiskos

We live in countries where the values, ethics, customs, etc., are based on Christian principles. If we look at the banknotes of the USA, it says: In God We Trust. The currency of a nation rests in a religious sentence. And so more around the Western countries, not just the United States. — javi2541997

"In God We Trust" (also rendered as "In God we trust") is the official motto of the United States[1][2][3] as well as the motto of the U.S. state of Florida, along with the nation of Nicaragua (Spanish: En Dios confiamos).[4][5] It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956, replacing E pluribus unum ("Out of many, one"), which had been the de facto motto since the initial design of the Great Seal of the United States.[6]

While the earliest mentions of the phrase can be found in the mid-19th century, the origins of this phrase as a political motto lie in the American Civil War, where Union supporters wanted to emphasize their attachment to God and to boost morale.[7] The capitalized form "IN GOD WE TRUST" first appeared on the two-cent piece in 1864 and initially only appeared on coins, but it gradually became accepted among Americans.[8] Much wider adoption followed in the 1950s. The first postage stamps with the motto appeared in 1954. A law passed in July 1955 by a joint resolution of the 84th Congress (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 84–140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower requires that "In God We Trust" appear on all American currency. This law was first implemented on the updated one-dollar silver certificate that entered circulation on October 1, 1957.[8] The 84th Congress later passed legislation (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 84–851), also signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declaring the phrase to be the national motto.[8][a] Several states have also mandated or authorized its use in public institutions or schools;[9][10] while Florida, Georgia and Mississippi have incorporated the phrase in some of their state symbols. The motto has also been used in some cases in other countries, most notably on Nicaragua's coins.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust — Wikipedia

Your text may be a fairly old one but may signify the role of Rome and Catholicism in ethical and political thinking. I am living in England and wonder to what extent what you are saying comes down to religious fundamentalism in its many forms. The dichotomy of religious beliefs and fundamentalist ideologies may be a strong factor in Amercaj politics and of so many other perspectives. In particular, the dialogue between religious perspectives and thinking may be important, especially where religious, and moral teachings are established.

I don't live in America, so I wonder about the limits of the questioning in relation to both fundamentalism and Catholicism in.America?.Are you interested in American politics alone or the wider scope of politics on a global level?. Also, to what extent may the relationship between politics and religion be considered, and religious thinking in conservative, or traditional thinking of the social order?. — Jack Cummins

↪Athena The pope seems to be having difficulty running his own shop, never mind the U.S. But Christian Nationalism is a real and present danger. Its main feature is its irrationality. A complaint I heard yesterday: Palm Sunday was not listed on a bank calendar -- proof that the state is trying to suppress Christianity. Other themes: White people are under threat. Liberals are a threat. The deep state is a threat. Woke is a threat. Law and order are falling apart. Children are disobedient. Story time with drag queens is a threat.

Really, just about anything / everything. It's difficult to argue with people who are receiving these crazy bat signals. A lot of Nazi dogma was irrational too -- complete nonsense -- but it tied into inchoate prejudices of various kinds. White Christian nationalism likewise taps into discontents that arise from various sources (like the stresses of scientific rationalism on traditional beliefs; increased economic insecurity; social disruption; unwanted social change, etc. etc. etc.) Right-wing propagandists fan the flames of discontent.

Your 1913 book is a reminder that this kind of conspiratorial thinking is not a new phenomenon in American culture, and it isn't so small and weak that it amounts to only a curiosity. The KKK of the 19th century is gone, but new versions have sprung up: different leaders, different followers, different centers of activity, the same bat-shit kind of thinking. — BC

based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming
— Athena

This seems to run quite counter to the science, though. — AmadeusD

Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources.
— Athena

No they aren't. — AmadeusD

No it can't. These concepts were invented by humans. Animals have no notions (possibly, at all, but at least) of these things. — AmadeusD

↪Athena In the 1980's the tension in Australia was always education understood as a blunt tool to get you a job - well paid or otherwise. Education at some point ditched history and context and became obsessed with vocational outcomes rather than wisdom or preparation for an adult civic life. — Tom Storm

I kind of agree, but how would you teach 'the good' in a world where there is no agreement on what the good is or if it is anything more than perspectival. Education would seem to be lot easier in a culture where pluralism and diversity don't exist. — Tom Storm

That's never stopped any civilization. — Vera Mont

Sure, you can buy that... — Vera Mont