Is it not a raison d'etre for philosophy to seek and discover the truths, if any, underlying beliefs? If one starts, a proiri, with the belief in a god informing his/her reasoning, where lies truth?

Your being ridiculous. All religions do this — Gregory

All religions plan for people from different, as yet non-existent religions centuries later to take over the world? News to me. To what end and how?

Is it not a raison d'etre for philosophy to seek and discover the truths, if any, underlying beliefs? If one starts, a proiri, with the belief in a god informing his/her reasoning, where lies truth? — Torus34

Nothing can be prove in philosophy in the sense of a Aristolean deduction. I don't trust Christians philosophical intuition at all

Religion is most usually fanatical. Have you seen this forum lately?

Nothing can be prove in philosophy in the sense of a Aristolean deduction. I don't trust Christians philosophical intuition at all — Gregory

[sic]

There are basic structures in philosophy which can be agreed upon as the basis for further discussion. These can be thought of as axioms, similar to those found in, for example, Euclidean geometry. To simply deny proof of anything negates the need, or even a purpose, for discussion. Regards.

There are basic structures in philosophy which can be agreed upon as the basis for further discussion. These can be thought of as axioms, similar to those found in, for example Euclidean geometry. — Torus34

No, everything can be doubted, even non-Euclidean geometry. Why does doubt scare you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q54VyCpXDH8

No, everything can be doubted, even non-Euclidean geometry. Why does doubt scare you? — Gregory

Curiously, I sit here not feeling scared at all. I've no problem with doubt. It has its place. There are even times when it doesn't, as when I'm in the middle of the street with a car bearing down on me. I do not, as a rule, take time out to doubt its existence and wonder, if it is actually real, whether it will hit me.

Regards.

Is it true you can doubt everything? Yes. That is a belief forced by the evidence. You can choose to doubt it. No problem with that. Is it true you doubt? Does it go on forever? Yes, can that be doubt? Yes. It goes on to infinity. Can that be doubted, yes. Are Christians a fanatical cult yes. So you see who has the problem here. Faith (choosing to believe something) has no place in philosophy.

whether it will hit me — Torus34

The practical and the theoretical are separate parts of the mind

Is it true you can doubt everything? Yes. That is a belief forced by the evidence. You can choose to doubt it. No problem with that. Is it true you doubt? Does it go on forever? Yes, can that be doubt? Yes. It goes on to infinity. Can that be doubted, yes. Are Christians a fanatical cult yes. So you see who has the problem here. Faith (choosing to believe something) has no place in philosophy. [Bold face mine.] — Gregory

We seem to have come round to my statement: "Is it not a raison d'etre for philosophy to seek and discover the truths, if any, underlying beliefs? If one starts, a proiri, with the belief in a god informing his/her reasoning, where lies truth?"

Nice chatting with you. Gotta go now.

Faith (choosing to believe something) has no place in philosophy. — Gregory

In this case, disregard all the existing philosophy in the world. By the way, end the forum too, as it is full of people with "faith".

Oh my self!, it is ridiculous how the staff lets this kind of madness endure in the forum.

If you want to go back to that. You need a transcendent reason to act good? I don't. The three monotheistic religions of the West are Satanic. A good religion, to give an example, is the Way of Orthodox Unity in Daoism. Gragan-Tiger Mountain in the Jiangxi province and Mount Longhu are there sacred cites. Their Pope is the "Celestial Master. Daodejing and Zhuangzi started this ancient tradition which has over 1200 books in their Bible, which is divided into 3 parts, or "caverns".

Oh my self!, it is ridiculous how the staff lets this kind of madness endure in the forum. — Gus Lamarch

Then go somewhere else. We like to talk about INTERESTING things on this forum, not Christian crap all the time

Then go somewhere else. We like to talk about INTERESTING things on this forum, not Christian crap all the time — Gregory

You missed the point of my statement:

You are not interesting.

You are not interesting. — Gus Lamarch

I have many interesting threads. You have none. Let this thread go and I'll post on other threads instead

Religion is most usually fanatical. Have you seen this forum lately? — Gregory

I've seen you, you seem fanatical. But that is not an answer to the question asked.

"Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena"

What religion people do all the time. They are on a drug

I have many interesting threads. You have none. — Gregory

Why I still try to discuss with someone who argues like a child? Good Day/Good Night

I've seen you, you seem fanatical. But that is not an answer to the question asked. — Kenosha Kid

It is not anti-Semitic to say Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all Satanic.

When I say Satanic, I say it's an evil system of belief. Evil comes from evil sources

I am just not going to get on this forum for awhile. You fanatical drug addicts can talk to other people who are NOT going to pay attention and who are going to go to other threads to have meaningful conversations. Your arguments stand refuted and your religion stands condemned to the Fires of Hell where it was born

I am just not going to get on this forum for awhile. — Gregory

You fanatical drug addicts can talk to other people who are NOT going to pay attention and who are going to go to other threads to have meaningful conversations. Your arguments stand refuted and your religion stands condemned to the Fires of Hell where it was born — Gregory

Tell you what:

We'll be pretty happy without your conspiracy theories polluting the forum. Thank you very much!

Rome conquered them first — Gregory

Rome certainly conquered Judea. Pompey first sacked Jerusalem, and then effectively ruled it for some time through its client kings, the Herods. Then it became a Roman province. The Jewish nation was for the most part tolerated indirect Roman rule, and Rome for the most part tolerated the Jews and the Jewish nation, accepting them as peculiar but respecting their religion because it was ancient. After Judea became a province, though, the Jews became subject to Roman taxation and direct Roman rule, which were resented. This resulted in revolt, ending in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE by the legions under Vespasian and then his son Titus, both of whom became Emperors. Roman soldiers may be seen carrying loot from the temple in Titus' triumph on one of the reliefs on his Arch in the Forum.

The Jews revolted a second time, only to be crushed by the legions of Hadrian after three years (132-135 CE). Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aleia Capitolina.

At the time of the second revolt against Rome, Christianity's influence was growing but it was already distinguished from Judaism as it had been since Paul's time. Paul's Christianity varied from that of Jesus' brother James, and both had their followers.

Christianity never conquered Rome, nor did the Jews. Christianity assimilated Rome. It became Rome, but not by conquest.

I honestly enjoy reading your comments, they are always original in their thought and interesting. I see you have your own style and concise way of making points. I am not being condescending here. I have seen you make many intelligent points. I hope the moderators will see that though your approach is sometimes idiosyncratic, it really brings an out of the box quality to this form. :smile:

that’s a win.

Jesus did not simply resurrect from the dead, — Josh Vasquez

Claim among many others made in the bible with no external supporting sources.

but he was the only person to do so who not only predicted his resurrection, — Josh Vasquez

It was written and thusly claimed in the bible that he predicted his resurrection then in the same documents he was claimed to have done so.

but who made the assertion that he was (and is) God in the flesh. — Josh Vasquez

Was this really a claim made by Jesus? All we know is the bible's claims of what he said as well as other theological claims that remain unsupported but are also suggested as explanations.

CS Lewis does a great job of highlighting Jesus’ claim to be God and not just a great moral teacher because he did intend to leave us thinking of him as a great moral teacher. If Jesus claimed to be God, predicted his resurrection, and physically resurrected, then your claim that his resurrection looks a lot less impressive compared to others is false. — Josh Vasquez

Stop saying Jesus claimed that this was the case. The bible claims that Jesus claimed these things and also claims that they occurred exactly or approximately as depicted.

In fact, if these three things that I have listed are true then I would suppose there has never and will never be a more important resurrection than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only because of who he claimed to be prior to his resurrection, but because of the ramifications it has on the eternity of all. His teachings are no longer only lessons on how to live a morally exceptional life, but on how to achieve life itself. I make this claim because if we are destined to live in eternity with God or apart from God our eternal life would take far more precedence over our earthly “life”. — Josh Vasquez

Emotional pleas are rather weak tools to convince others of the veracity of your claims.

The gospels are simply historical accounts or records of the life of Jesus as understood by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. — Josh Vasquez

They are a mixed bag of claims that people claim are historical and theological speculation that christians claim is to be taken seriously rather than take what is said with a grain of salt. These miracles are not only claimed to have occurred but it's then strange that even if we accepted the one or few descriptions of an event that occurred correctly described what happened exactly were also supposed to be forced into assuming the author(s) were correct in their theological explanations of the event (that he was god and this is why this miracle could occur, that he was virgin birthed, that he could resurrect).

It interests me how there are 56 trillion threads about Christianity on philosophy forums, and they almost never make even the slightest mention of love. But, that gives me the opportunity to do a slam dunk gotcha, so thanks for that. :-)

Like the soul sista said: "What's love got to do with it?" :smirk:

What's love got to do with it? — 180 Proof

Yea, in the case of Christianity, rather a lot.