I'd play somemore, but the rationality of this converstation just went bye bye. — Mayor of Simpleton

The cat leaves with the tail between its legs ;)

It's a strange situation. The atheist can find no rational basis in the belief in a god, and the believer accepts faith as a gift. The theist position pervades western culture right down to its foundations, insurance clauses specifically preclude god's interference from their liability, he is on US capitol tender. Beyond the physical indications of mass belief there is its effect on what, how, even when we think, which I don't think any of us can fully escape (hermits go nuts, always been that way) the way it has affected our system of valuation, and valuation I think goes to the core/origin of rationality.

I personally don't think man can live without some sort of religion, even if that is a hallowed routine, that one faithfully practices. Truth existentially means "troth" fidelity to one's beliefs. Maybe Agostino is right, God is more interested how men live their life, then he is regarding their belief/non-belief in his existence.

Maybe being in troth with your own beliefs is more important than what is believed.

After years of reading the work of people trying to define the Divine, and trying it myself this way and that... It reaches a point where it all seems like hubris at best. Power-grabbing manipulation of others at worst. This is excepting what someone prays in their heart or whispers at their sacred shrine. That is deeply personal territory and experience beyond judgment. But when there is a loud call for consensus, it is more like conformity and control than unity or brother/sisterhood. Dice doesn't play g-d with the universe. And perhaps neither should we.

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone! :D

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone! :D — 0 thru 9

Why is everyone saying Merry Christmas today? :P It's the 24th, not the 25th no (unless you are from Japan?) ? And as far as I know Christmas is 25th, 24th is merely Christmas Eve.

It's a strange situation. The atheist can find no rational basis in the belief in a god, and the believer accepts faith as a gift. — Cavacava

Stranger still... Not only can they find no rational basis for the belief in God, they demand that one is given, and if one doesn't give it then:

Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. As I see it there is much to be discussed because if not there may be no discussion allowed in the name of this sort of totalitarian invisible proxy of constraint and censure

Combined with all the allusions to North Korea, totalitarianism and the like. This goes to show one thing - namely that the problem most atheists have with theism isn't an intellectual one (does God exist or not?) but rather an emotional and a political one - a problem of the will as Pascal would say. If there is a God - then certain things which they don't like follow. Not giving them a reason for your own belief in God will merely lead to them unmasking themselves. They're not asking for a reason because honestly they want to consider the question of is there or is there not a God - no - they want a reason to tear it down. If you give them reasons, they can fight back - but if you don't give them reasons, suddenly they are left powerless, and in that desperation will reveal that it's not intellect that is driving them, but the will - it's really about the ramifications of theism - the emotional and political ones especially.

The problem with God for them, is really the morality that comes attached with it. They're not so outraged at the existence or inexistence of God. They're outraged that homosexual sex is immoral (for example) if God exists - that's the North Korea authoritarianism for them. But they can't attack that ground, because they figured the morality/immorality of that depends on the underlying metaphysics. So the metaphysics therefore must be attacked - they say strike at the root, that is their strategy. But if someone doesn't want to debate the metaphysics with them, suddenly they don't know what to do! This guy is a theist and refuses to give reasons for his belief! Outrageous! And thus, their political concerns, which motivated them all along, but which until then they would cleverly hide, inevitably come to the front. They want to attack theism because of its consequences. And showing this is sufficient to discredit them intellectually - in truth the strategy enables them to discredit themselves. That combined with taking every chance to show their intellectual dishonesty at their many attempts to provoke one to offer reasons for belief in God certainly more than suffices. The theist wins best on the defensive, not on the offensive. Hence apologetics - defending the faith.

And the fact that these motivations of the will show themselves openly enables them to be unmasked and shown to be irrational. For example, their hatred of authority becomes evident - evident from the false association of authority with authoritarianism. But the truth is that authoritarianism undermines the very authority it claims to so love, because it removes the very reasons one has for obeying authority - namely that it makes sense, it is rational. In authoritarianism, the authority decrees whatever is to its liking, without regard to whether the decree is rational or not. But because it does so, it undermines its very authority which previously provided reasons for following. Now that it's not rational anymore, what's the reason for following it? Authority becomes transformed into irrational tyranny, which destroys all respect for it. So this is their clever ploy - in order to discredit authority, conflate it and the love of authority, with authoritarianism. That's how we go from Heaven to North Korea!

The theist position pervades western culture right down to its foundations, insurance clauses specifically preclude god's interference from their liability, he is on US capitol tender. — Cavacava

Is that really so? I don't think so at all - I think quite the opposite in fact. If we look at how things are, we see that people pay lip-service to God, by putting, for example "In God we Trust" on their money. But do they really trust in God? Doesn't seem like it to me at all. Do they put insurance clauses specifically precluding God's interference from liability because they want a reason to save money and to look good or because they really believe in God's interference? Do people call themselves Christians because they really follow the teachings and morality given in the Bible, or because they want to be seen and thought about well? In fact, I'd go as far as say that the world (really meaning the Western world) has never been farther from God than it is today, and it's never been close to God for most of its history either.

Beyond the physical indications of mass belief there is its effect on what, how, even when we think, which I don't think any of us can fully escape (hermits go nuts, always been that way) the way it has affected our system of valuation, and valuation I think goes to the core/origin of rationality. — Cavacava

What are these indications of mass belief that you see? And what's the evidence that hermits go nuts? Some monks are hermits for very long periods of time - years upon years. And they are perfectly sane.

I personally don't think man can live without some sort of religion, even if that is a hallowed routine, that one faithfully practices. — Cavacava

I agree. Either God or Mammon, but it has to be one of them.

God is more interested how men live their life — Cavacava

Most likely.

Maybe being in troth with your own beliefs is more important than what is believed. — Cavacava

If one who lives in a Christian culture goes up to God’s house, the house of the true God, with a true conception of God, with knowledge of God and prays—but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in a idolatrous land prays with the total passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest on the image of an idol; where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God, although he worships an idol. The other prays in untruth to the true God and therefore really worships an idol — Soren Kierkegaard

s that really so? I don't think so at all - I think quite the opposite in fact. If we look at how things are, we see that people pay lip-service to God, by putting, for example "In God we Trust" on their money. But do they really trust in God? Doesn't seem like it to me at all. Do they put insurance clauses specifically precluding God's interference from liability because they want a reason to save money and to look good or because they really believe in God's interference? Do people call themselves Christians because they really follow the teachings and morality given in the Bible, or because they want to be seen and thought about well? In fact, I'd go as far as say that the world (really meaning the Western world) has never been farther from God than it is today, and it's never been close to God for most of its history either.

I don't deny that people pay lip service to the idea of God,however his presence is literally all over the place in USA, and what pertains to belief in him is still argued at the highest levels (Citizens United). The clash of the Moslem and the Christian cultures, is felt around the world. Smell that dark roast coffee.

Hey, I never met a hermit, have you? If you have literally met a hermit and he made sense to you, then clearly I am wrong, but in everything I've read, they all seem off a bit to me.

The indications of mass belief are found in the christian spine that supports most of our popular narratives. Society accepts and we expect to be happy for everafter. Our social spine depends on the values we share. Again, I think the 80/20 rule applies: 80% pay lip service to their faith, but 20% are ardent, in absolute numbers that's a lot of ardent people

We seem to agree on rest, except of course that you believe in God and I don't know.

Hey, I never met a hermit, have you? If you have literally met a hermit and he made sense to you, then clearly I am wrong, but in everything I've read, they all seem off a bit to me. — Cavacava

I've gone to visit the Eastern Orthodox monks for a short time on Mount Athos, and I have visited and discussed with hermits there, including some monks who had returned from being hermits to living at the monasteries. There's absolutely nothing wrong or off with these people. Modern psychological theory, for social reasons, has transformed the desire to be alone or the desire for seclusion into a sort of mental illness. Many other ideas are associated with mental illness as well - for example chastity. But many of these people actually seem quite strong mentally, and they are very kind and otherwise can be very sociable and compassionate. I was actually impressed at their compassion and understanding of subtle social issues and cues...

Also there's a question of whether any kind of companionship is worth it. I have distanced myself from most of my old-time friends for example, because their values and things they like to do have become very different from mine. It's not that I don't like companionship, I do desire it, but it's simply that I cannot find the kind of companionship I desire in most people I get the chance to meet. So therefore it is better to be without companionship than to be with the wrong kind of companionship. So although I meet a lot of people in my work life, I have few close friends at the moment.

80% pay lip service to their faith, but 20% are ardent, in absolute numbers that's a lot of ardent people — Cavacava

Yes, but in a democracy, the 80% control the nation's future.

Thanks about the hermits.

Yes, but in a democracy, the 80% control the nation's future.

Well in the case of the last election here in the states, 279 votes were all that counted, HRC received 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump, but she lost. The GOP out strategized the DEMS, no doubt about it. The majority supposedly picks the candidates, but as we saw last election here in the US (that bastion of Democracy) the primary process can/was fixed in favor of HRC. I like Italy's M5S decision to have its primary on line for its 137K members to vote, this seems fairer, if it can control the process.

Those who are most ardent about their religion tend to show up and they voice their feelings....also those who give deeply are deeply heard. Those who are nominative christians (the 80%) are typically happy to follow along with whatever their religion decides as long as it does not dive too deeply into their pockets or go brazenly against standard societal norms. I think society deep down realizes that it is better off with religion than without it, in my opinion. Or at least society does not seem to have matured to the point where it can operate in an orderly fashion for any extended period of time without Religious normative values. Even the Nazis understood society's need for religion, and they tried to establish its own churches. The conscious blending of religion with nationalism is a highly volatile mix.

Sometimes. Here "faith" (in the sense of an argument for a belief, as opposed a description of a belief) is a about a little bit more than that. It doesn't consider faith to be a truthful argument, but rather something entirely outside knowledge altogether-- one just "believes" rather than knows something about ethics or the world.

In effect, this does mean ignoring evidence in favour of belief (as one believes no matter what), but the notion faith runs deeper. It doesn't understand itself to be knowledge at all. (hence Agustino's turn to the "unknowable" here).

It's a rehtorical argument made to cause commitment to God without considering truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's ridiculous, because neither you, nor anyone else knows the truth, in this regard. Merry Christmas to all.

Thanks about the hermits — Cavacava

No problem, you're welcome.

Well in the case of the last election here in the states, 279 votes were all that counted, HRC received 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump, but she lost. The GOP out strategized the DEMS, no doubt about it. The majority supposedly picks the candidates, but as we saw last election here in the US (that bastion of Democracy) the primary process can/was fixed in favor of HRC. I like Italy's M5S decision to have its primary on line for its 137K members to vote, this seems fairer, if it can control the process. — Cavacava

Yes but the absolute majority doesn't make sense to me to begin with in a country as large as America. It seems to me as representation of the country by geographical area has to be taken into account, otherwise a few urban regions like New York will swallow up most people (as they have already done) and then this majority would rule tyrannically and uncaringly over all other smaller regions, draining resources and people all to themselves - and forcing everyone to become like them and adopt their values. The United Kingdom has this problem, where London, Manchester and other such large cities are drawing all the resources and sucking up all the population, thus leaving the other regions forgotten. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote merely because of the progressive landslides from California, New York and so forth. But the republicans represent America much better than the Democrats do considering the geographical area that voted. I think the Republican victory is fair - fairer than Democracy as usually understood. Anyway, I think with Plato that democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government if we exclude tyranny and dictatorship.

Those who are most ardent about their religion tend to show up and they voice their feelings — Cavacava

Maybe - but they are generally kept at bay and isolated by the majority.

I think society deep down realizes that it is better off with religion than without it, in my opinion. — Cavacava

Either this, or the 80% simply use such tactics - putting in God We Trust on money etc. in order to contain the 20%. Just like in the old PF, where atheists dominated by and large, they had a philosophy of religion section, to quote SLX if I remember correctly, in order to keep God topics contained, so they don't spill over in other sections. In other words, it was better for them pragmatically speaking to have a section than to have no section at all.

Or at least society does not seem to have matured to the point where it can operate in an orderly fashion for any extended period of time without Religious normative values — Cavacava

Why do you assume that a mature society wouldn't need religious normative values to operate in an orderly fashion?

Merry Christmas to all. — John

Merry Christmas! :D

Merry Christmas Agustino X-)

Merry Christmas Agustino X-) — John

Hmm that emoticon seems quite dubious haha - have you sent me an evil present? >:O

I hope not; is it an evil emoticon? Oh, perhaps I see, the eyes are not merely open, but diabolically open on that one? O:)

Remember now, my tendency towards Asperger's renders me a poor reader ( and by extension, user) of emoticons. ;)

I hope not; is it an evil emoticon? Oh, perhaps I see, the eyes are not merely open, but diabolically open on that one? O:)

Remember now, my tendency towards Asperger's renders me a poor reader ( and by extension, user) of emoticons. ;) — John

>:O LOL! Yes I remember!

:)

Only A1's death come with a hope. — Cavacava

Don't you mean consolation? Talk of hope or forgiveness seems to already assume a god, yet one may find consolation in a variety of ways: e.g. in knowledge, beauty, melancholy etc.. Religion does not have monopoly on consolation.

Whence the need to decide whether to blindly believe in god? Priests who exploit people's fear of death should be put in jail, imo.

I agree. Either God or Mammon, but it has to be one of them. — Agustino

This is falsely dichotomous, it seems to me. Are you really saying that all atheists, or Buddhists or Taoists for that matter, worship Mammon in some way?

I think with Plato that democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government if we exclude tyranny and dictatorship — Agustino

Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I am wont to agree.

Hi jkop. The wager counts if the belief in G is a true/troth belief, if it is a mechanical wager done without any purity of intent, then it fails and it can provide neither consolation nor hope. Agnostics, I think they are well positioned at time of death to truly accept what they have questioned previously, which is not to say that atheists can't also convert.

I think Fredric Jameson is correct in saying we are in last stages of capitalism. He suggests that we consider possible Utopias as models. I think he may be correct, and that there is a good chance that we will see a large transformation of societal values in this century. The politics of the few over the many will be a major point in any such transformation, and the use of Religion as a basis for societal control will also be a major point of contention in my estimation. I don't think a mature society needs to control its population, in the same way we have to had to control our population. Religion would become un-politicized into real communities with belief systems, and not hierarchies of power catering to national interests.

This is falsely dichotomous, it seems to me. Are you really saying that all atheists, or Buddhists or Taoists for that matter, worship Mammon in some way? — Thorongil

Where am I saying that? One always has faith - that's my point. And the faith is either in God or Mammon. Now the faith doesn't have to be conscious. One can be an atheist and yet have faith in the true God, just as one can have his eyes set worshipping an idol, and yet in truth he would be worshipping the one true God.

I highly doubt that any social system organised around "the corporation" will ever be good. I am a follower of distributism - lots of small, independent economic producers, focused on the production of necessary goods, and life revolving away from consumerism and economic activity, and more around family and culture. I am an enemy of both socialism and corporatism (which is the outgrowth of capitalism) - which really are one and the same. Corporatism is a form of socialism, except that the corporation replaces government. Socialism is merely capitalism with a human face.

I think Fredric Jameson is correct in saying we are in last stages of capitalism. He suggests that we consider possible Utopias as models. — Cavacava

Yeah, capitalism will morph into corporatism - that's no good as far as I'm concerned. And if that doesn't happen, and instead the corporation will end - then there will be a massive war, and whoever emerges out of it unscathed will be a huge victor.

I don't think a mature society needs to control its population, in the same way we have to had to control our population — Cavacava

This is utopian and simply impossible considering human nature. Men left to their own devices - in other words the removal of discipline - will always lead towards social chaos. This has nothing to do with maturity. Maturity applies to individuals. A mature individual doesn't need external discipline anymore. Think analogically to gas molecules. Gas will always spread evenly in the container, even though each molecule doesn't aim for this. So too, human society will move towards chaos if there is no restraint. Not because there is something wrong with individuals (or because they aim for this), but rather because the probabilities are crooked, at a social, not at an individual level.

And think about it. One mistake counts more than one success. That's the asymmetry that skews the probabilities.

Given the exponential growth of corporations, it may be that they will supercede governments (corporatism is a old idea, it might also serve as a model for the structure of religion), or that governments will adopt the schema of a corporation, in which we all hold some stock, & get to vote our shares, set goals. Some corporations seem to be managed a lot better than many nations, but of course their considerations are very different and the existence of a corporation presupposes a preexistent order (yet trade conquered India didn't it, better order?). Corporate Nations might have a difficult time with entitlements, unless they can be shown how it can improve business, or perhaps they are set it as one of its corporate goals, realizing that by allowing a safety net it provides comfort to the many that don't and may never need it.

Jameson suggests the military is the mostly likely source of a new governments since strong effective chains of command are already in place, and he suggests the possibility of a utopia where everyone must belong to the military (Universal Conscription). All would be paid for since everything is done for the state. Sounds like camouflaged communism, but perhaps not. While Jameson's tongue is firmly in cheek in places, the military option is certainly possible in many countries where it's the most stable institution is the military.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. …

Sounds as though this is describing our situation. The events here and around the world are numbing. Death, destruction and chaos have become rampant everyday events. As long as nations are insulated from the outright mayhem the majority remain convictionless. Countries like Germany who accepted over 1 million immigrants from very different cultures over the course of a year, is quickly forming convictions.

Obama was never able to close Guantanamo because the military did not want it closed. Trump's 'team' can't seem to get the information he wants from people at the Department of Defense as well as other governmental bodies. Today, the head of the Catholic Knights of Templar rebuked Pope Francis' attempt at an intrusion in their affairs, which is remarkable in my opinion. Meanwhile Trump will soon assume control which has the majority on the edge. Mr. Trump has nominated Gen. James Mattis (ret.) as defense secretary and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly (ret.) as homeland security secretary. He’s also picked Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.)to serve as his national security adviser. We all trust the military.

There's nothing new in this though. When all else fails, brute force will make a way. Always been like this, always will be like this. And I respect the military by and large. Honour is better than hedonism for sure. Best is reason, but honor (Timocracy) is second best - and I agree with Plato's comments.