Merkwurdichliebe
1.8k
Moral awareness, and becoming an autonomous moral agent, isn't particularly related to theism.
— jorndoe

This is a great point. I would add, that for the religiously inclined, moral awareness and the concept of becoming an autonomous moral agent is a prerequisite for religion and observing the demands of one's faith, but the connection ends there. Religion and morality are as comparable as ethics and art - and philosophy weaves its way through all three. — Merkwurdichliebe

But the whole point of religion is having faith that one knows the will of God and is protected by this God as long as one does not do something that needs to be punished. Reason has nothing to do with it. Unless we want to say believing the people with the strongest god win wars and if we want protection we must worship that god and please that god and hope that god accepts us as his/her people, is good reasoning.

Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking is essential here. If what we believe is true is not the result of slow thinking, it has a high chance of being a false belief. https://www.shortform.com/summary/thinking-fast-and-slow-summary-daniel-kahneman?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz5Ll3p2S8QIVtzytBh3FiwbSEAAYASAAEgJj1_D_BwE

Yeah, I know, "evil" too immature a concept for grownups to think about. But I also know this. You who claim to know a lot - more than me - refuse to answer a simple question, after refusing to answer some not-that-simple questions, being instead dismissive, deflecting, mocking, condescending, offensive - anything at all not to answer. So you're a weasel. Being thus uncivil, you are not entitled to civility. So FUCK YOU, weasel. And that will be my reply to you until and unless you rejoin reasonable discussion. Questions asked, not answered, pending. Your move, weasel . — tim wood

I already asked what is evil? Now I need to ask what is your question because I would love to give answering it a shot. I suspect the argument you are having is the result of not knowing the difference between fast and slow thinking.

It would be nice if when we reply to a post we attack the thought not the person, and reply with arguments that are comprehensive to anyone and do not require knowing what was said in the previous post. That would be, "you said this ___________ and I disagree because ___________. What matters is not how much a person knows, but how well a person presents an argument. In your mundane life, you may be a brain surgeon or astrophysicist but that does not help us here in an argument of what we must know to have good judgment.

And of course, what do you suppose "is" means?
If by "is" you mean an unquestioned presupposition of your thinking, then it's all yours. On the other hand if you mean something else, then what do you mean?
— tim wood — tim wood

Ah, thanks to the organization of this forum, I think I found your question.

An unquestioned presupposition is fast thinking. This can lead to holding a false belief, such as believing the quest for knowledge is a sin for which a god punished all of humanity by denying them the Garden of Eden. A belief associated with a powerful demon that lies to us and causes us to go against the will of God. This belief, unfortunately, has terrible political consequences as we have just experienced because of Covid. A time when we need to rely on science instead of a book written before we had much understanding of science and believed in supernatural forces of good and evil. Science has done more to end evil than that book.

I am totally confused by this thread. What is a non-believer? — Athena

I don't think you are the only one who is confused by this thread. However, it all becomes clear if you consider the political agenda behind it.

As for "non-believers", I think they are a kind of people who believe in all sorts of things but deny the right of others to hold their own beliefs.

As for "non-believers", I think they are a kind of people who believe in all sorts of things but deny the right of others to hold their own beliefs. — Apollodorus

This is a lie. And actually a vicious lie. I'd go on, but in the end, all that is useful to know about a liar is that he lies. And it doesn't do much good to tell him, because he is inevitably his own first victim.

This is a lie. And actually a vicious lie. I'd go on, but in the end, all that is useful to know about a liar is that he lies. And it doesn't do much good to tell him, because he is inevitably his own first victim. — tim wood

Wow, you are very emotional, aren't you? Believing something that is not true does not make a person a liar. At least I never considered calling religious people liars, but I suppose if we are not superstitious we could think those who are superstitious are liars. However, I don't think calling people liars will ever come to any good. I am strongly against calling people liars. Some forums have a rule against name-calling. It sure does not promote good reasoning.

Wow, you are very emotional, aren't you? — Athena

Not at all. It is a lie. I simply identify it as such and make a further observation based on my experience with that individual. Were it mere invective, then you correct. But it is not. and I invite you to consider that.

Wow, you are very emotional, aren't you? — Athena

I think "emotional" is the wrong word. More like "psycho" IMO.

And it isn't about religion either. They just hate being contradicted no matter what you say. Above all, they hate losing an argument because it forces them to acknowledge their intellectual limitations. The best you can do is just let them bark at themselves, which they enjoy doing anyway.

Keep it up, FW. But just be careful to never not ever answer a question you're asked. As long as you can do that, you must be right!

Believing something that is not true does not make a person a liar. — Athena

The claim was made that "the right of others to hold their own beliefs" is being denied. This is simply not true. The accusation is made here and elsewhere whenever the accuser's own views are challenged and cannot be adequately defended. As if to question with these views is to deny the right to hold them.

I won't speculate as to whether the accusations of persecution are actually believed or are merely rhetorical, but I think it should be viewed in light of the repeated claim here and elsewhere of having won the argument. It has not, the argument has been evaded and this is just another evasive tactic.

I am right anyway. I don't need your approval to know that.

But the way I see it, your problem is this:

1. You insist on winning the argument when it is obvious even to an infant that there is not even half a chance in a million of doing that.

2. You refuse to accept the other side's answers, in which case you might as well talk to yourself or write your own answers.

Incidentally, I never said that I "won". There is nothing to "win" and even if there was, I couldn't care less about "winning".

All I'm saying is that you lost the argument in the sense that you failed to prove your case and you've got no chance of realistically ever winning an argument like that. If you believe otherwise, you are free to do so.

don't think you are the only one who is confused by this thread. However, it all becomes clear if you consider the political agenda behind it.

As for "non-believers", I think they are a kind of people who believe in all sorts of things but deny the right of others to hold their own beliefs. — Apollodorus

Yes, I deny the right of others to have their own beliefs because wrong reasoning can have bad consequences.

:lol: A drier coin receptor is not working. One of my good neighbors said she will pray for it and tells me that works every time. I am okay with testing that belief. That test is not as bad as ministers telling their flocks to trust in God and not science when Covid is taking people's lives. I much rather test that belief with something that does not kill people. One Oregon church that attempted to sue our governor and force an end to the shutdown, is associated with at least 74 cases of Covid. What did those people do to not warrant God's protection? What about all the people who got Covid because someone spread it in the community? How many people vote, risking the lives of others is okay and what happens is the will of God, not human stupidity? How about global warming because of human behavior, is that something we can ignore as we pray our home will not go up in flames this summer?

Not at all. It is a lie. I simply identify it as such and make a further observation based on my experience with that individual. Were it mere invective, then you correct. But it is not. and I invite you to consider that. — tim wood

What is the lie? Would you please put what you are talking about in your post? If you want to talk about a lie, you need to say what that lie is.

A drier coin receptor is not working. One of my good neighbors said she will pray for it and tells me that works every time. I am okay with testing that belief. That test is not as bad as ministers telling their flocks to trust in God and not science when Covid is taking people's lives. — Athena

That reminds me of a friend of mine who every time she loses or misplaces something she prays to St Anthony (or whoever) and next day she surely finds it.

But you are perfectly right. I don't believe in blind belief in anything. Religious leaders need to remember that they are just priests not saints or prophets and either (a) stay out of politics or (b) if they do get involved in politics or public life then they have a duty to inform themselves of the facts and not imagine that if they know the scriptures they know everything.

Fanaticism and lack of judgement is as bad in religion as it is in politics and all areas of life. And atheists can be as fanatical as theists even though they may not admit it or even not be aware of it.

The claim was made that "the right of others to hold their own beliefs" is being denied. This is simply not true. The accusation is made here and elsewhere whenever the accuser's own views are challenged and cannot be adequately defended. As if to question with these views is to deny the right to hold them.

I won't speculate as to whether the accusations of persecution are actually believed or are merely rhetorical, but I think it should be viewed in light of the repeated claim here and elsewhere of having won the argument. It has not, the argument has been evaded and this is just another evasive tactic. — Fooloso4

Oh yes, I clearly see evidence of the argument being evaded.

And I am someone who denies others the right to believe what they believe because wrong thinking can lead to very bad things. With Covid and global warming and making matters worse by believing a god protects us and takes care of us, like a father takes care of children, is not okay! It as wrong as bleeding people to death, believing that is how to cure them of what ails them.

The greatest cause of "evil" is ignorance and we must not tolerate it.

What would it take for evil to be legitimately described as "absolute", in your opinion? — Olivier5

It would be absolute if it existed independently and not in relation to other things. As I told barstick, if something like eternal forms could be proven, then the concept of absolute evil would be definitely viable.

Fanaticism and lack of judgement is as bad in religion as it is in politics and all areas of life. And atheists can be as fanatical as theists even though they may not admit it or even not be aware of it. — Apollodorus

For example?

For example? — praxis

USSR and Napolean come to mind

From Wikipedia:

As an adult, Napoleon was a deist, believing in an absent and distant God. However, he had a keen appreciation of the power of organized religion in social and political affairs, and he paid a great deal of attention to bending it to his purposes. He noted the influence of Catholicism's rituals and splendors.

Looks like he may have known how to effectively use religion. No wonder he was successful.

USSR and Napolean come to mind — Merkwurdichliebe

USSR in any case. And Maoist China.

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

p1. All moral principles guiding human behaviour are prescriptions of God
p2. Some moral principles contradict others
C1. God's prescriptions for behaviour are self contradictory

That reminds me of a friend of mine who every time she loses or misplaces something she prays to St Anthony (or whoever) and next day she surely finds it.

But you are perfectly right. I don't believe in blind belief in anything. Religious leaders need to remember that they are just priests not saints or prophets and either (a) stay out of politics or (b) if they do get involved in politics or public life then they have a duty to inform themselves of the facts and not imagine that if they know the scriptures they know everything.

Fanaticism and lack of judgement is as bad in religion as it is in politics and all areas of life. And atheists can be as fanatical as theists even though they may not admit it or even not be aware of it. — Apollodorus

I also have an uncanny ability to find missing things, however, I do not pray to a saint of god for help. I also do not consider myself to be an atheist. I just find the religious writings unbelievable. I have attempted to know many religions/philosophies and I see the same basic truths in all of them. I also have always had spiritual experiences even possible experience with those who have crossed over. I love logos, reason, the ruling force of the universe and firmly believe things will go well when we have the right reasoning and do not go well when we do not have right reasoning. We are part of something much larger than ourselves.

However, there was a time when everyone was a god/ goddess' favorite and arguing that one has the only true god and telling stories such as the Garden of Eden story and believing it is literally true, sets off my alarm bells, and all my arguments against that idea.

I also have an uncanny ability to find missing things, however, I do not pray to a saint of god for help. I also do not consider myself to be an atheist. I just find the religious writings unbelievable. — Athena

Me too. My usual technique is to mentally trace back all my actions to the very moment where I "lost" the object in question. But once or twice when I just couldn't locate what I was looking for, I saw the object and its whereabouts in a dream and next morning when I looked it was there.

To me, religious writings do have a cultural value. But they can also have a moral value and sometimes you can even find spiritual truths in them. It may be the Platonist influence but when I read, for example, "I am the Light of the World" (John 8:12), it immediately reminds me of Plato and Plotinus' allegory of the sun and its comparison with the intelligence that illumines the world.

Plato and other ancient philosophers used myths to illustrate certain points they were making and I believe that some religious texts are doing the same. Different people draw different teachings from them according to their own level of maturity and understanding. As long as they don't get any crazy ideas or don't turn to fanaticism, I don't have a problem with that.

According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.

If there's any truth to that it's far worse than any religious fanaticism I've ever heard of.

All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organization are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

Seemed to be entirely motivated by a grab for power/control.

All I'm saying is that you lost the argument in the sense that you failed to prove your case — Apollodorus

Hey FW. You never noticed that I never had a case, nor wanted one. I simply noted a difficulty with the consistency of mixed concepts and asked for some clarity on the meaning and use of terms. So I had nothing to win, nor anything to prove. Your deliberate inversion of these facts is simply more lying by you. Further, I make a point, and have often made the point, that as an axiom of mine, beliefs as beliefs are pretty much unassailable. Presented as facts, however, they properly become subject to question, analysis, and critique. You have beliefs, but apparently questioning your presentation of them as facts, you cannot handle.

It is a lie. — tim wood

What is the lie? Would you please put what you are talking about in your post? — Athena

but deny the right of others to hold their own beliefs. — Apollodorus

That's the lie.

If there's any truth to that it's far worse than any religious fanaticism I've ever heard of. — praxis

It wasn't just Christians. Remember that Marxism aimed to wipe out the "bourgeoisie" or middle class.

Marxism believed in class struggle:

“The history of all societies is the history of class struggle”

Preamble, Communist Manifesto

Marxism also believed in revolution as the liberation of one class, representing the whole of society, from another “criminal” class, representing an obstacle or “stumbling-block” to be eliminated:

“For the revolution of a nation, and the emancipation of a particular class of civil society to coincide, for one estate to be acknowledged as the estate of the whole society, all the defects of society must conversely be concentrated in another class, a particular estate must be the estate of the general stumbling-block, the incorporation of the general limitation, a particular social sphere must be recognized as the notorious crime of the whole of society, so that liberation from that sphere appears as general self-liberation. For one estate to be par excellence the estate of liberation, another estate must conversely be the obvious estate of oppression.”

Introduction, Criticism of the Hegelian Theory of Right

In Russia, the middle class were about 10 million.

In 1918, Grigory Zinoviev, who was a leading Central Committee ideologist, wrote in the paper Severnaya Kommuna:

"To dispose of our enemies, we will have to create our own socialist terror. For this we will have to train 90 million out of the 100 million Russians and have them all on our side. We have nothing to say to the other 10 million; we'll have to get rid of them" (G. Legget, The Cheka: Lenin's Secret Police).

The Cheka : Lenin’s Political Police - Internet Archive

I think it was in the first census after the revolution that it was found that 10 million were missing and further millions were discovered with the de-Stalinization program after WWII and after the collapse of the USSR, when archival materials were declassified in 1991.

Between 1825 and 1910 the imperial (Christian) government executed 3,932 people for political crimes.

Stalin executed 681,692 people for "anti-Soviet activities" (that could be absolutely anything) in just one year (1937-1938). Multiply that by a couple of decades and you get the idea. And that's just a moderate estimate. Some historians have much higher figures. And even higher for Maoist China.

Great Purge - Wikipedia

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin

USSR--Genocide and Mass Murder (hawaii.edu)

According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.

If there's any truth to that it's far worse than any religious fanaticism I've ever heard of. — praxis

since you've already lost the argument — Apollodorus

To begin to assess this we need to look at who some of those sources are. "Some sources" according to the Wiki article this statement is taken from turns out to be two sources: James L. Nelson and Todd M. Johnson. Neither of them are experts on Soviet history. The problem is that these "sources" do not explain where the numbers come from. Why is it that only "some", meaning two, sources make these claims?

It would be absolute if it existed independently and not in relation to other things. — Merkwurdichliebe

Everything exists in relation to other things, though.

how do you know that God isn't omnibenevolent and that you are more omnibenevolent than him? — Apollodorus

*sigh* If you could read, FW, you would see that I never claimed that God either was or was not omnibenevolent. No doubt omni-anything invokes some paradoxes, but that not my purpose. What I have been on about is omnipotence and omnibenevolence co-existing. To answer that requires some attention to the words themselves. And it's a problem of some standing.