How do you know what position I'm coming from on the basis of so little information?

Do you know where I'm from?

Do you know any conditions of my life, past or present?

Exactly what makes me come from this assumed position of privilege you speak of?

Well... perhaps what you stated was clear, but the foundation is certainly not. — Mayor of Simpleton

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, or central Europe, correct? That's all I need to know. I forget where exactly. Austria? Somewhere in the U.S.? Probably nothing like Saudi Arabia.

So the notion here is that this decision makes a less profound change in my life than this undisclosed appeal to authority, why is that so?

Is that so?

How do you know in any way whatsoever what changes have occurred in my life; be they profound or less profound? — Mayor of Simpleton

I do believe I made it pretty clear that my criticism is not solely based on your life, but takes into account numerous other lives.

In short, your response here is bleeding with hasty assumptions and appeals to an unseen authority with an undisclosed standard of measure of which I seem to have been assumed to have "better in of a stick" as compared to an undisclosed group of other some people; thus have no profound experiences worthy of discussion as I'm assumed to be bourgeois in my concerns that you have never bothered to concern yourself with asking what they might be, but simply brushed them off as a position of privilege.

WOW!

You got all that from next to no personal information and a handful of posts on a rather specific topic?

AMAZING!

I ask you if you'd care to see if all of your (blind) assumptions are true or perhaps in parttrue, but I seems more that you have decided to paint a preffered narritive of how you believe I must be in character and concerns upon the basis of extremely little, but as you decided to make your self-assumed points via an assumption (an attack) on my character rather than on the content of the debate I can say I have no interest in discussing personal matter with you.

Feel free to be angry with me if you so do choose and if you'd like we can bring in the Ads and Mods of this forum to weigh the matter.

As I view it we are done. — Mayor of Simpleton

I'm not committing any fallacy, but I am judging the situation based on a certain standard, and that's not something I'm trying to conceal. Basically, according to my standard, those who are suffering from actual oppression take precedence over bourgeois concerns about not understanding works of art and the like.

So you mean you base your belief in this (provided this is indeed the god of you belief... you haven't really said that outright and all I an say is it seems to be the case) god of the Christian bible upon faith and not empirical a posteriori reasoning?

If so, fair enough. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, my belief in the Christian God of the Bible is based on faith

To tell the truth I have never bothered with atheist arguments. I've never quite understood the point of it.

If I wish to argue the existence of a new species I believe does exist, the proper method would be to argue that the species exists rather than argue why the yet to be confirmed species does not exist.

It seems to me that to argue in favor of a position that is founded only in the rejection of another assertion of belief is a bit odd. Why wouldn't one simply ask for evidence to prove the existence of something claimed to exist instead?

Wouldn't it make more sense to strenghten the argument for the existence of god; thus moving on to prove this point to be sound?

To simply find fault in the criticism against the argument for existence only illustrates/exposes that a particular criticism against the argument for the existence is executed poorly done or is weak. Illustrating/exposing poorly done logic or weakness in a criticism against a point does not prove the initial point of the argument. It only illustrates/exposes weakness in the criticism.

Indeed I find errors and weakness in some points of criticism regarding god existing, but these errors and weaknesses do nothing to prove the notion that god exists.

It seems unless we are wishing to refine the criticism against the existence of god there is really no point in this folly.

Meow!

G — Mayor of Simpleton

This is all fair and I have no issue with that. My only caveat would be if one is not withholding judgment do to a belief the proposition is not supported, but still possible. That is a very different thing than making a judgment the thing does not exist because of lack of evidence. The later is an active judgment to a proposition. If one wishes to challenge that proposition as false, one should be willing to justify that position. If the only objection is, you have not convinced me, it is a rather short and fruitless discussion.

Let me put what I find an interesting discussion in a more formal structure.

I believe by faith that God of the Bible is true, true being a personal belief that one tries to act in accordance with.
I believe it is not a matter of fact that God is, or God is not
I believe there are reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of God
I believe none of these arguments completely overwhelm the others

Therefore I concluded my belief by faith is not in conflict with fact or reason, and a such should be respected as a valid belief.

Happy to discuss reasoned arguments that either my propositions are false, or my conclusion does not follow.

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, correct? That's all I need to know. — S

Gee...

What could possibly be hasty about that?

I do believe I made it pretty clear that my criticism is not solely based on your life, but takes into account numerous other lives. — S

Which explains why you addressed your reply it in such a personal matter to me. So I am also a generalization of the lives of others that have been generalizied according to a region of the world?

Again... what could possibly be hasty about that?

I'm not committing any fallacy, but I am judging the situation based on a certain standard, and that's not something I'm trying to conceal. Basically, according to my standard, those who are suffering from actual oppression take precedence over bourgeois concerns about not understanding works of art and the like. — S

Well... then why are you bothering to rant at me about this?

It seems you clearly believe that since I think in a certain manner, you assume I live in a certain way and have concerns in a certain direction as guided by a certain position of privilege all judged by a standard that you "have clearly disclosed" as you just now revealed it... well you make it as if due to the notion you that have that about self-assumed certainties in my life, but not according to my life in particular , but the context of a group of people assumed to be like me that are judged by a certain standard that you just now revealed that was obvious before it was revealed, but anyway... :

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, correct? That's all I need to know. I forget where exactly. Austria? Somewhere in the U.S.? Probably nothing like Saudi Arabia. — S

...so I cannot possibly understand what the other people (I guess you mean people in Saudi Arabia... why Saudi Arabia? Weird as I know a few Saudis including some of my neighbours, but hey uhh... What does that have to do with anything I've ever posted in this thread?) have to deal with in terms of the "short end of the stick" if this is indeed

all I need to know — S

?

I'm sorry but this is far too ridiculous to deal with anymore, so I'll just say the odd non sequitur thoughts you are attempting to voice are right, I am wrong and I am guilty as charged, so now will you simply leave it alone as I am giving you your whatever it is victory.

You "win", so let's call it done.

Done!

G

Gee...

What could possibly be hasty about that? — Mayor of Simpleton

Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why.

Which explains why you addressed your reply it in such a personal matter to me. So I am also a generalization of the lives of others that have been generalizied according to a region of the world?

Again... what could possibly be hasty about that? — Mayor of Simpleton

You fall under a general category, yes. I'm in the same category. It's the category of residing in a place in the world that is developed, prosperous, liberal, tolerant, and democratic. A category which has stark differences to places like Saudi Arabia, which I'm using as an example because of reasons like this.

Well... then why are you bothering to rant at me about this?

It seems you clearly believe that since I think in a certain manner, you assume I live in a certain way and have concerns in a certain direction as guided by a certain position of privilege all judged by a standard that you "have clearly disclosed" as you just now revealed it... well you make it as if due to the notion you that have that about self-assumed certainties in my life, but not according to my life in particular , but the context of a group of people assumed to be like me that are judged by a certain standard that you just now revealed that was obvious before it was revealed, but anyway... : — Mayor of Simpleton

I assumed that you either knew about the situation in Saudi Arabia or were capable of looking it up on the internet. Perhaps I should not have made that assumption.

Anyway, I think my standard of judgement was obvious from the start. Apparently, from what you're now saying, you just didn't pick up on it.

...so I cannot possibly understand what the other people (I guess you mean people in Saudi Arabia... why Saudi Arabia? Weird as I know a few Saudis including some of my neighbours, but hey uhh... What does that have to do with anything I've ever posted in this thread?) have to deal with in terms of the "short end of the stick" if this is indeed — Mayor of Simpleton

Here's a task for you. Read that article I linked to, then compare it to the situation of wherever it is you reside, then report back with any relevant differences you notice.

?

I'm sorry but this is far too ridiculous to deal with anymore, so I'll just say the odd non sequitur thoughts you are attempting to voice are right, I am wrong and I am guilty as charged, so now will you simply leave it alone as I am giving you your whatever it is victory.

You "win", so let's call it done.

Done! — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, it's oh so ridiculous! Hasty generalisation! Non sequitur! Getting personal! Only cares about winning!

Nice try.

Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why. — S

OK... a final bit of fun.

Let's play... FIND THE QUESTION!!!

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example. — S

No question there, so let|s move on.

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, or central Europe, correct? That's all I need to know. I forget where exactly. Austria? Somewhere in the U.S.? Probably nothing like Saudi Arabia. — S

Ha! Questions...

In short the question is:

Do live somewhere is that not like Saudi Arabia?

My answer is yes I live somewhere that is not like Saudi Arabia.

Now my question...

And your point is?

OK... let's review the single sentence in a reply not direct to you that made you get your panties in a bunch.

If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion. — Mayor of Simpleton

Fine.

What is the connection between my not living in Saudi Arabia and this sentence according to you; thus it being a critique:

You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example. — S

So the question remains what is the connection between me writing a single sentence; "If you mean forget theism as in erase it from our memory or knowledge I would not advocate that notion", and you posting: "You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example."?

Second question would be, what question am I avoiding as you now suggested; "Methinks you're avoiding the question. I wonder why", when no question was presented in your original rant of: "You say that from a position of privilege. In another place or time, you probably wouldn't be so fortunate. And this privilege didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be fought for, and it would still need to be fought for in some places today, like Saudi Arabia for example", but second reply contained a muddle of assumptions finally ending in a sort of question Do live somewhere is that not like Saudi Arabia?

------------------------------------------------

After thinking about this I had to make a few assumptions of my own to make really anything think you have thought you have written to be clear understanable into some sort of sense.

The only thing I can come up with is because the illustration I posted, that being to answer the question of why do artist in medieval paintings make babies (especially Jesus) look like an old man one would need an understanding of thesim to have this make sense. OH! ... and I did mention that this was even a trivial example as to illustrate that even in trivial things forgetting theism altogether would leave massive gaps of understanding of past history; thus to avoid having misunderstandings and complete voids in the understanding of history it would be indeed necessary to have some sort of understandng of thesim (EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE) to make sense of large parts of cultural history.

The only reason I can come up with as to why you basically blew your top, was that you personally find to even think of the notion of medieval paintings can only come from a position of privilege and bourgeois concerns?

I still have no idea what you mean by Saudi Arabia.

My position is that one would be better advised not to forget thesim.

Gee whiz!

Did a sudden wave of dictatorial hard anti-theism occur there and thus they are no longer an Islamic Nation?

Is it now the case if anyone in thinks about theism or remembers theism that there's a thought police to make them pay big time?

Or is it that anyone who mentions medieval paintings is an enemy of the state?

Or possible is it that if anyone wonders why a baby looks like an old man they are arrested on the spot?

Let's face it... you have provided no question whatsoever. You have only ranted in a manner unbecoming of anyone associated with philosophy or basic manners. You then run the course by making some sort of flimsy psychological deflection claiming that I am a wholelist of things that you have nothing but the voices inside the vacuum of you mind to support. In some sort of self.justified delusional state of moral high ground you have completey taken a reply to someone else so far out of context is have become unrecognizable to anyone expect yourself.

In short... your behaviour is an insult to good reason and the members of this forum. It would bid well if you simply crawed off to a conspiracy chan.

In short... I have had enough of you.

[Mod censored]!

G

OK... a final bit of fun.

Let's play... FIND THE QUESTION!!! — Mayor of Simpleton

You're from a developed, first world country in the West, or central Europe, correct? — S

Found it.

And your point is? — Mayor of Simpleton

How many more times do you want me to make it? My point has been made multiple times, and you can find it in my previous comments.

If you value art over real people suffering from oppression, then that's that. You aren't adding anything of value to the discussion with your ranting and rambling. Good day to you, sir.

Its hard to know if we had no religious thoughts at any time prior to Christianity. I'm starting to think that during the early paleolithic era, where were quite animalistic in our thoughts, and something caused our imagination to explode. As imagination developed I think it drove our minds towards curiosity and expressing our thoughts into a language that may have been a very visual one with illustrations and narrative.

At some point that language gave birth to a shared spirituality to fulfill the curiosity. Because if your language is very illustrative and narrative based, then surely any philosophical thoughts you will have would come out spiritual. Then those first spiritual teachings developed into religions.

Atheism could be a relatively new development caused by splitting the old illustrative language into separate ones such as mathematics, science, engineering etc.Causing an advancement into our understanding of the universe and thus eliminating God from it.

Religion tries to be a multi-function tool. Science knows its limits. — S

Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool. Science, in contrast, is a highly-focused and highly-developed single-use tool. If Religion and philosophy are Swiss Army knives, science is a stilletto. There's nothing wrong with this; it's just how things are. Without the focus and development, even though it leaves many other issues behind in doing so, science would (could) not be the valuable tool it is. It is fashioned to be the ultimate tool in a heavily-restricted subject area. And the restrictions directly bring about its ultimate accolade.

I recalled that atheism is far older than Christianity as described above. — VoidDetector

Bald unfounded statements. Ancestor worship is demonstrably far older. Even if there is a case to be made (which there probably is) that the romans eradicated atheism at the time, by no means does that demonstrate that thus atheism was far older. At most it can claim that thus there were at least some atheists around at the time it got eradicated by the romans. To then make the claim that thus atheism is far older is rather jumping the conclusions.

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

If people are to live peacefully together, a commonly shared model of the world is required. Atheism doesn't provide a model that is sufficient for that, since atheism is just the rejection of certain models, not the acceptation of any model. Though rejecting useless models or less useful models can be a useful thing to do, rejecting all models without replacing them with more useful models leads to disaster.
Luckily most people claiming to be atheist don't actually do this. Instead they replace an older, for them less useful model (their interpretation on a certain older religion) with a for them more useful model (in most cases science). And though science is limited in it's applications on the human conditions, the part where it does apply is very useful, and in those cases an improvement on older models. However, these people are more believers in science than actual atheists, since they adopted science as their god.

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

Because religion, spirituality, and fantasy come to people trying to figure out the unknown without having the tools to really understand them. It happens today as well, when someone can't explain something, they attach delusions and fantasy to them before trying to make logical sense. I would say that it's part of the system 1 and 2 of how we think. System 1 is instinctual, it acts directly but does not think as we think it does, it only uses previously known information. It then feeds new information to system 2 which "thinks" about it and organize new information into new ideas combined with old information, that we then act upon in system 1. So when people encountered something they couldn't explain, they most likely reacted with system 1 and without any other information, they let system 2 make up an explanation to why that was.

This is why historians reason that the first religions were smaller, village-based religions which differed around the same concepts such as floods, thunder, famine etc. The larger religions and pantheons then evolved when trade-routes were formed between these villages, like a "sticky boulder" which rolled through the land, collecting bits and pieces of different spiritual and religious ideas and formed a larger narrative, which took over. So each of the larger religions throughout history started off with small fragments of smaller ones.

In essence, it's easy to understand why religion and spirituality formed because it always forms within people who try to understand something unknown without the right tools to do it outside of their own mind. It's taken us over ten thousand years to reach a point where we have scientific methods to figure out something without influencing it with our own fantasies.

Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool. — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Well, I've purchased and tested both. I would like a refund on the religion multi-tool, please.

This is like saying soberness is older than alcoholism. A fallacy. Only after alcoholism can there be soberness. If alcoholism didn’t exist, soberness wouldn’t either.

This is like saying soberness is older than alcoholism. A fallacy. Only after alcoholism can there be soberness. If alcoholism didn’t exist, soberness wouldn’t either. — unforeseen

No, you're the one committing a fallacy. There's no evidence that humans drank alcohol prior to 10,000 years ago. There's evidence that humans were in Africa around 300,000 years ago. It is quite possible that there were humans who were sober before drinking was even discovered. If they hadn't discovered alcohol at the time, then they certainly couldn't have been drunk on it, and they therefore must have been sober in that respect. Just because the word, concept, knowledge, or whatever, didn't exist at the time, that doesn't mean that they weren't sober. We can say lots of true statements like that about early humans. They weren't vaccinated, weren't fans of Elvis, weren't Republicans, and so on...

Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Well, I've purchased and tested both. I would like a refund on the religion multi-tool, please. — S

Fair enough. That a tool is available doesn't mean you have to use it. Maybe you don't have the sort of questions that religion might answer? It doesn't matter. Like I said, religion isn't compulsory. :up: :smile:

I'd like to disagree. Soberness is the quality of not being drunk, so it's just a negation. Before alcohol was invented nobody was drunk but that doesn't mean one can say everyone was sober, because drunkenness and Soberness didn't exist. Just like you wouldn't say ancient Egyptians were anti-vaxxers, because vaccination was not even a thing back then let alone it's negation.

Fair enough. That a tool is available doesn't mean you have to use it. Maybe you don't have the sort of questions that religion might answer? It doesn't matter. Like I said, religion isn't compulsory. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

That an inferior tool is available doesn't mean that I have to use it. I do have many of the questions that religion fails to answer well. And I definitely am not suggesting that religion is compulsory, though thank god it isn't where I'm from. You seem to be missing the point by a country mile.

You seem to be missing the point by a country mile. — S

Oh, I thought we had reached a realisation that we had no significant disagreement here. :chin:

Oh, I thought we had reached a realisation that we had no significant disagreement here. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

If we did, then your reply before the one quoted above appears to have changed that. You could of course make that clear by simply saying whether or not you agree with what I just said in my last reply to you.

I'd like to disagree. Soberness is the quality of not being drunk, so it's just a negation. — unforeseen

You're free to disagree, but if you do so on that basis, then your disagreement is unreasonable. It is true of people before the discovery of what alcohol can do when enough of it is consumed that they were not drunk from alcohol. Denying that suggests otherwise, and good luck explaining that one!

Before alcohol was invented nobody was drunk... — unforeseen

Then they were sober by your own definition! :lol:

Just like you wouldn't say ancient Egyptians were anti-vaxxers, because vaccination was not even a thing back then let alone it's negation. — unforeseen

That only makes sense because we think of anti-vaxxers as being against vaccination.

If you take that away, then you're simply wrong. It is true that they were not in favour of vaccination, that they were not fans of Elvis, were not drunk on alcohol before that was discovered, and so on and so forth.