I don't see how the opinion you express here requires so much denigration. — Valentinus

Hopefully, S is young and will realize better in time.

Do you have any ideas about how the mental work of abstract thinking can be made comprehensible to those who know as little as S? I am feeling frustrated with this challenge. Nothing important about democracy is understood without understanding what abstract thinking has to do with liberty and democracy. It is a way of perceiving human capability and God, that is essential to understanding our liberty and democracy as rule by reason but how can this be explained so it is more understandable? This is not the Christian God but the Deist God.

Theism is the belief in the existence of at least one god. Atheism is its opposite of theism, the lack of belief in the existence of any gods. Deism is a type of theism, the belief in a god who created the universe, but does not intervene in it.
Theology: What is the difference between deism and theism? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/Theology-What-is-the-difference-between-deism-and-theism

That's it, bring out the ad hominems against me. Everyone line up and take turns. I'm mean and young and ignorant! I mean, I use the word "fuck" here and there, say "capiche?", and raise an eyebrow. I'm an absolute monster! So everything I say should obviously be dismissed.

I expressed my opinion.
Just like you did.

What did I come here for? That is a good question.
I will think about it.

This may not be the right forum for you. Bad manners is not the meaning of freedom of speech. You aren't a monster. Just immature.

I came here to share knowledge with others who are here to share knowledge, and I have a huge preference for maturity and civility. I don't think others have a right to tear down the standard that has been set here.

I don't agree with your judgement either.
Oy vey.

I expressed my opinion.
Just like you did. — Valentinus

The difference is that mine was relevant to the topic.

What did I come here for? That is a good question.
I will think about it. — Valentinus

You should do. The primary purpose of this forum is to discuss philosophy, and the topic of this discussion is whether or not it's true that religion poisons everything. If you felt an irresistible urge to deviate from this topic to let me know that you disapprove of my tone, then you could have done that in a private message or somewhere more appropriate.

Staying on topic is important, wouldn't you agree? Is the topic about my manners or tone or level of maturity? Will that somehow change the validity of my criticism?

Now, to get back on track (at least in relation to where Athena has taken the discussion, which is a tangent in itself!), there are only two categories of entities corresponding to abstract and concrete. They are, respectively, what exists as a thought or an idea or a concept; and what actually exists, what's physical, stuff like organisms and objects. If God is not the latter, then God must be the former. But Athena seems confused about this and has gone off track.

I'm just raising the question, if God is an abstract entity, and therefore either a thought or an idea or a concept, then, as a soft atheist or an agnostic, why should I really care? For that matter, why should a theist care? Why should anyone care? The controversy is whether or not God actually exists, concretely. So this line of thinking misses the point, does it not?

I don't agree with your judgement either.
Oy vey. — Valentinus

I am saying the God Abraham religions are not compatible with the democracy. I am also saying it is possible to have a concept of God that is separate from religion. Are you arguing against these points? Please clarify your argument.

This may not be the right forum for you. Bad manners is not the meaning of freedom of speech. You aren't a monster. Just immature.

I came here to share knowledge with others who are here to share knowledge, and I have a huge preference for maturity and civility. I don't think others have a right to tear down the standard that has been set here. — Athena

Okay, I'm sorry. There-there, hush now, mummy make it better. Would you like a tissue? How about a hug?

Are you done now? Can we continue? Or would you rather drag this out some more?

Organized religion is yes a poison.
The idea of a organized religion, such as, Catholicism, Islamism, and basically all the main types of religion, is erroneous. The idea of going to a religious center that tells you what a deity whats you to do according to their interpretation of ancient books, already sounds ridiculous.
Any organized religion makes a kind of brain wash on their followers, and people are sometimes to blind to see.

I am also saying it is possible to have a concept of God that is separate from religion. — Athena

I disagree, I think that any such concept is a) deism which is still theism b) isnt a meaningful definition of god or c) has no meaningful distinction from religion.
Can you explain your concept of god?

I am saying the God Abraham religions are not compatible with the democracy. — Athena

I would agree, considering they are premissed upon a supreme dictator.

I agree that religion is poisonous, but I wouldn't use those exact words. Religion is potentially dangerous because it asks you to give up your reason in exchange for faith. Without reason, one loses the ability to live in accordance to reality.

I agree that religion is poisonous, but I wouldn't use those exact words. Religion is potentially dangerous because it asks you to give up your reason in exchange for faith. Without reason, one loses the ability to live in accordance to reality. — AppLeo

I think that that last sentence is either untrue or misleading. Whilst I agree that those religious beliefs and some other beliefs would be effected, most such people apply a double standard, which is in itself unreasonable, but it means that they can live their lives in accordance with reality to an extent. If it weren't for this, I would expect the mad houses to be full to the brim with them. And that'd be a lot of people.

Well yes, everyone must use reason to some degree or else they would be destroying their ability to live. But I don't think being religious and still being able to live in accordance to reality to an extent is an excuse to be religious.

Well yes, everyone must use reason to some degree or else they would be destroying their ability to live. But I don't think being religious and still being able to live in accordance to reality to an extent is an excuse to be religious. — AppLeo

Yes, from my perspective it's not either, because I value reason more than that.

Deism is a type of theism, the belief in a god who created the universe, but does not intervene in it.

Ah, a god the existence of which makes no real difference. A bit like a celestial tea pot in terms of what it does, or rather doesn't do. Except that even a celestial tea pot does more than this god, which literally does nothing at all. At least a celestial tea pot floats aimlessly in space, potentially colliding with other objects. And if you were to object along the lines that it makes you feel a profound sense of awe and reverence, well, that doesn't require a god. One could feel that way about the universe or a celestial tea pot or innumerable other things.

So you are agreeing with me. Right?

So you are agreeing with me. Right? — AppLeo

Yes, albeit with the qualification that it's a matter of judgement rather than a matter of fact. I judge it to be inexcusable because of my values, whereas others judge it differently because they have a different set of values. There's not an objective right or wrong here in my view.

No objective right or wrong here, or at all? If just in this case then I wonder how you differentiate.

No objective right or wrong here, or at all? If just in this case then I wonder how you differentiate. — DingoJones

In my view, ethics and aesthetics are subjective matters. That's a topic in itself. I accept that there are facts about the world, and I would reject the alternative that there are no facts at all on the basis that it leads to absurdity with a Moorean shift. The distinction between the two is that facts about the world do not depend on the existence of any subject perceiving them. They don't depend on subjects at all. Even if we all suddenly ceased to exist this very second, there would continue to be facts thereafter. The world wouldn't cease to exist along with us, and so long as the world exists, there will be facts, such as that there is a world.

I disagree, I think that any such concept is a) deism which is still theism b) isnt a meaningful definition of god or c) has no meaningful distinction from religion.
Can you explain your concept of god? — DingoJones

For me, the important differences are, the way we come to know God and what we believe about humans. Both are based in Greek philosophy. The Sumerians had a story telling us we were created to help the river stay in its banks. The Greeks didn't seem to have an idea of why men were made, but women were made to be both desirable to men and as a punishment for men. :lol: Down the road, philosophers decided everything had a purpose. Birds are born to fly, horses are born to run, and humans are born to think. Believing we are born to think is a whole lot different from what religion tells us! The very first story tell us desiring knowledge is what got us in trouble with God in the first place. I like the story of Pandora and the box a whole lot better! She opened the wedding gift from Zeus, not to gain the power of knowledge but because she was curious. This may sound like silly stories, but what they tell us about what we think of humans and knowledge is important. We are curious and want to know, and are born to think, no sin! NO SIN.

The God of Abraham holy books are about who has the authority and who is to obey. That is not compatible with democracy. The Greeks and Jews fought over who should get a job. The Jewish way was dependent on birthrights, and authority and jobs were inherited. The Greeks gave jobs to whoever was the most suited to do a job. This lead to war

The Maccabean Revolt (Hebrew: מרד החשמונאים‎) was a Jewish rebellion, lasting from 167 to 160 BCE, led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and the Hellenistic influence on Jewish life.
Maccabean Revolt - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt — wikipedia

Christians were very tied into this inherited authority notion until the renaissance brought pagan thinking into the community and transition to modernism began. This goes with exploration and commerce and people without royal blood getting wealthy and seeing life differently than the Christian story. Our story of God and what we believe about humans is very important!

Next is the curiosity and that we are born to think, as the bird is born to fly. Wanting knowledge is not a sin. Wanting knowledge of God is natural, and the only thing we can study is nature. The only thing we can study is nature. Essential to our liberty and democracy is understanding how things work. We are not sure if God is 3 dimensional or multidimensional. We are not sure string theory is getting us closer to understanding the reality of our reality? If you want me to define an unknown God, I can not do that. All I know is we don't know everything and need to keep our minds open.

The problem with being atheist is the closed mind and exaggerated opinion of humans as the highest authority. That is nuts. Humans don't know enough to think they are at the top of the chain. Collectively we can know a lot, but individuals can know very, very little. The more we know, the more we know of what we do not know. That leads us to the unknowable God. It keeps us humble and our minds open.

Well yes, everyone must use reason to some degree or else they would be destroying their ability to live. — AppLeo

Not all reasoning is the same. People read holy books and take it on faith that the books are the best knowledge of life we can have. A few people willing to read the books, question the truth of what is said and look for evidence. That is a completely different level of thinking/reasoning.

To think on the higher level requires training for abstract thinking. Unfortunately, that was dropped when we replace liberal education with education for technology. The masses are stuck with thinking on the concrete level and have no awareness of the abstract level of thinking. We lack an understanding of thinking and how our brains work. Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking. They want authority over them and to be free of responsibility and just obey God's chosen authority over us. Democracy is a huge responsibility they don't want. They want the lion king to return and restore paradise for them and they believe Trump is a great father for our country. :lol: Point- do we want democratic responsibility or a Great Father to rule us? We can reason in favor of either, but not of the reasoning will be high order reasoning.

I understand what you meant by subjective. I asked because you seemed to be making a distinction between some morals and the morals being discussed ”...here...” and I was curious about how you made that distinction. It appears you do not.

I would say that is a description “b)”, no meaningful definition of god. You have taken some ideas you had and called it god. Why? Couldnt you avoid alot of confusion by not using the word god?
An unknowable god is not a meaningful definition either. It describes nothing, has no exlanatory power at all, no substance at all that would necessitate the use of the term “god”.
So I still disagree.

Not all reasoning is the same. People read holy books and take it on faith that the books are the best knowledge of life we can have. A few people willing to read the books, question the truth of what is said and look for evidence. That is a completely different level of thinking/reasoning. — Athena

You left out the group that read the holy books, looked at their message and their purpose. Thought deeply about them. And find meaning in them, and by faith chose against the other alternatives to believe them.

You point is just the same old tired and complete false belief that dumb people believe and smart people don't

Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking. — Athena

This is just patently false, and insulting. Take out the word "christian" and put in any other group and see how it reads.

as is the rest of the paragraph - it is pure bigotry

Yes, but living things depend on facts to survive.

Yes, albeit with the qualification that it's a matter of judgement rather than a matter of fact. I judge it to be inexcusable because of my values, whereas others judge it differently because they have a different set of values. There's not an objective right or wrong here in my view. — S

Why?

How is it not wrong to accept a truth without evidence? I understand that people judge things different because of different values, but it doesn't make their judgments correct.

In my view, ethics and aesthetics are subjective matters. — S

Aesthetics is subjective, sure. But ethics? I disagree. There is an objective morality. The standard of value that all individuals have is their own lives. Life is the most important value. Which means that everything that propels an individual's life forward is moral, and everything that doesn't is immoral. Reason, which is fundamental to the survival of your life, must be an objective moral value. It cannot be subjective.

Not all reasoning is the same. People read holy books and take it on faith that the books are the best knowledge of life we can have. A few people willing to read the books, question the truth of what is said and look for evidence. That is a completely different level of thinking/reasoning. — Athena

Faith isn't reason though. Faith is irrational. There is only one kind of reason.

To think on the higher level requires training for abstract thinking. Unfortunately, that was dropped when we replace liberal education with education for technology. The masses are stuck with thinking on the concrete level and have no awareness of the abstract level of thinking. We lack an understanding of thinking and how our brains work. — Athena

No, everybody is capable of reason. Everyone has the choice to put their emotions aside, to observe reality, and to use logic to come to conclusions on reality.

Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking. — Athena

That's their choice. It doesn't mean they can't.

They want authority over them and to be free of responsibility and just obey God's chosen authority over us. — Athena

I agree with that, absolutely.

Democracy is a huge responsibility they don't want. They want the lion king to return and restore paradise for them and they believe Trump is a great father for our country. :lol: Point- do we want democratic responsibility or a Great Father to rule us? We can reason in favor of either, but not of the reasoning will be high order reasoning. — Athena

What do you mean by democratic responsibility? I don't know how you're getting two kinds of reason. There's only one kind.

I would say that is a description “b)”, no meaningful definition of god. You have taken some ideas you had and called it god. Why? Couldnt you avoid alot of confusion by not using the word god?
An unknowable god is not a meaningful definition either. It describes nothing, has no exlanatory power at all, no substance at all that would necessitate the use of the term “god”.
So I still disagree. — DingoJones

:hearts: I love your questions and over the years have had to answer them many times. Christians and atheist both hate me. :lol: A mod in a science forum got so frustrated with me, he banned me.

What happens when we insist God is unknowable?

What is wrong with confusion? Isn't it a whole better than being sure we know the truth?

Why does a god have to be defined? Really why does a god need to define? The moment we think we know god, we know god not. Do you get the logic of that statement? All we can know is what we think we know, and God is beyond our comprehension so perhaps we should not be too sure of what we think we know as we should not be too sure there are only 3 dimensions.

It totally changes the argument with religious people when there is agreement that there is a god. It is much better than spending eternity going around in a tiny circle about the existence of God. End that stupid argument! God exist, now what? Now we have a chance of having meaningful arguments. Atheists can join this larger argument if they can get past their knee jerk compulsion to argue there is no god. And really how much abstract thinking is there in the argument that there is no god? Atheists are shooting themselves in the foot when they block intelligent discussion with the one argument that there is no god. Their stupid argument only proves to the Christians that they are right because the Bible speaks of those evil non-believers. How logic is it for atheists to keep proving them right when their goal is to prove them wrong? Change the argument.

I have no problem with the existence of God. The universe is obviously ordered or we would not be here to argue the point. Now can we get information?

The universe doesn't have order.

By observing it we obtain a sense of order and understanding of the universe.

What would a disordered universe look like? For example, things that can be both hot and cold at the same time. Or things that can go up and down at the same time. That kind of universe wouldn't exist. If it did exist and we lived in it, then we would obtain our sense of order from that universe.

Im not sure how to respond to any of that. Im glad that my questions amuse you, but you didnt really address anything I said.
You arent really offering anything of substance, the words are just empty assertions. You could replace “god” with any gibberish word and lose nothing from your statements.
Also, did you just state with pride that you were banned for being frustrating? That doesnt sound like a good thing.

You left out the group that read the holy books, looked at their message and their purpose. Thought deeply about them. And find meaning in them, and by faith chose against the other alternatives to believe them.

You point is just the same old tired and complete false belief that dumb people believe and smart people don't

Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking.
— Athena

This is just patently false, and insulting. Take out the word "christian" and put in any other group and see how it reads.

as is the rest of the paragraph - it is pure bigotry — Rank Amateur

You made some excellent points. I listen to college lectures and know without question that some of our countries highly honored professors are Christians. However, a problem comes up when they are arguing with an atheist who may have a math and science foundation of knowledge because their foundation of knowledge is so different. You see, it is not a matter of IQ but rather a matter of having different foundations for knowledge. A similar problem comes up when speaking of people from different cultures with different religions.

We can take out the word "Christian" and put in the words, Hindu, Buddist, Jew, Muslim, Taoist. Are you as willing to honor these people as you want us to honor Christians, or does the term bigot apply only when speaking of non-believers and Christians? Are you equally willing to honor all other religions? A big problem I have with religious people is they tend to believe they know God's truth and everyone else is wrong unless they are Hindu or Buddist. Do you believe you know God's truth and everyone else is wrong? Do you point a figure at those others and say they are ignorant? I know Christians mean well but they have made enemies with their certainty that they know God's truth and others do not.

No one pondered Christianity more than Martin Luther and he believed God determined who would be masters and who would be servants and that the witch hunts were necessary. He lived with a lot of ignorance. Studying the bible does not resolve that problem.

I like the Bhagavad Gita explanation of being a good person better than the Biblical explanation. I like the notion that wise sagas are important to us, and that this is human wisdom, not the word of God. I think the notion that a God spoke to only a few people very suspect of error. Like if God does work that way, then Allah corrected the religious ideas of Jews and Christians when he gave the correct explanation to Mohammed, right? Or how about this, God spoke to the Jews his chosen people and later comers shouldn't mess this up with new stories and we should be sacrificing animals as God commanded us to do, and all the pagans did at that time, although those pagans were not worshipping the right god, but they got the need to sacrifice animals right. Of course, before you decided what is God's truth, you studied all the other religions so you could make an informed decision, right? That is what you mean by giving the decision a lot of thought, right?

If the people do ask questions of the religion available to them, what questions are they asking and where are they looking for answers? We can reasonably argue the universe is ordered and therefore there must be a god. It is everything else they believe about reality, humans, and god that matters. It is not just a question of if there is or isn't a god. Does God talk to us as Quakers believe, or just a few people, or is Joseph Campbell right about god speaking to everyone, only people in different environments and with different cultures understand Him differently?

You know there are Christians who avoid math and science because they don't want to put the effort into learning math and science, so your logic that what I said is false has to be an emotional response not your reasoned response. In general, people avoid learning math and science, even professors. This becomes a problem when people who have at least some understanding of math and science are arguing with those who do not. Their argument cannot be based in logical because they are not working with the same foundation of knowledge.