Most theists ignore this forum altogether.
— Hanover

You have evidence for this? — Banno

Total number of theists / total membership of TPF = Really low number

Run your eye down the list at https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/7/philosophy-of-religion and show me I'm wrong. — Banno

Maybe the religious ramble on a bit. They are a passionate bunch, not motivated by simple academic curiosity, but by heavenly concerns. Religious ferver maybe. It's hard sometimes to get them off your front porch, why would you think they'd leave easily here?

I've repeatedly espoused silentism — Banno

I ddn't know that, but we're in agreement in that regard then.

Medieval Christianity borrowed the arguments from Islam. They had to, since they had destroyed the Classical culture that was their own stoa. — Banno

Yes, early Christianity was superb at repression, and at assimilation when repression was unsuccessful. This was especially the case with Latin Christianity, I believe, which naturally was dominant in most of Europe during the Middle Ages. The early Christians found Neo-Platonism fitting to the task, so it was never completely repressed, despite the systematic burning of books pagan books. But the "rediscovery" of Aristotle courtesy of Muslim scholars was something of a bombshell, and it took Fat Tommy Aquinas to assimilate his work.

. I've repeatedly espoused silentism, not atheism. — Banno

Ah, blessed silence. But religion brings out the noise in us.

Science vs. 'God': The Big Bout PDF:

https://austintorney.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/fthc-8.5x11-jpg-150-dpi.pdf

Total number of theists / total membership of TPF = Really low number — Hanover

Ah, but we are at cross purposes, since I was talking of the philosophy of religion forum, not the philosophy forum.

The OP is an exploration of a few ideas, nothing more. It's apparent that there are those here who do not understand the irony of the title, but there's no point in explaining a joke.

But religion brings out the noise in us. — Ciceronianus the White

SOCRATES: And does not my art show that you have brought forth wind, and that the offspring of your brain are not worth bringing up?
THEAETETUS: Very true.

I knew Socrates. I worked with Socrates. You sir, are no Socrates.

And you are no comedian.

:grimace:

I'm not sure if I follow. I was not referring to Craig or Plantinga, they're not neo-scholastics.

Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.

Ought we do as he says? — Banno

Irrelevant example, a fictional scenario, because the moral decision depends entirely on the situation being real, factual.

It's not possible to make meaningful moral decisions in fictional scenarios. (Although fictional scenarios are conducive to playing out one's fantasies.) Moral decisions require that there exist actual options to act on, in the real world. Fictional scenarios don't provide those.

But we might add, if it is so pointless, why are you both here? There are plenty of folk who agree with you, and hence do not post here.

Is it inconsistency, or incontinence? — Banno

Processing of old traumas, efforts to gain a pychological distance from religion (via controlled exposure and desensitization).

Statistics bears it out. Educated, wealthy people are more likely to be atheists. — frank

Sure. But I would like to see longitudinal and developmental studies of this phenomenon.

It seems to me that when people start out poor and religious, they sometimes end up well-off and atheist. In some cases, religion is vital for propelling people forward, but once a measure of material wealth and wellbeing is achieved, religion takes a backseat.

Are educated, wealthy people more likely to be atheists because they are educated and wealthy; or are they educated and wealthy because they are atheists?

Theaetatus was something of a milquetoast, it seems.

Are educated, wealthy people more likely to be atheists because they are educated and wealthy; or are they educated and wealthy because they are atheists? — baker

Educated people practice orbiting the hinges properly.

I just noticed that you referred to my thread. As I think I said, I don't really like the clear categories of theist, atheist or agnostic, because I prefer to keep a more fluid approach. Of course, from my previous post on philosophical mysteries, people probably realise that I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious. I don't necessarily believe in astrology, but anyone who does would probably not be surprised to know that my sign is Pisces. But, I think that I really created the thread which I did yesterday because there are just so many threads on atheism, and a couple on agnosticism, mostly on the front page. Of course, there are a couple by Barticks on God, but I was trying to redress the balance, but the idea of the mysterious doesn't necessarily imply a God.

Aporia seems the natural outcome of philosophical discussion; silence follows.

I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious — Jack Cummins

Nothing in atheism debars this. Indeed, it avoids the theistic leap to an unjustified conclusion, and so is a help rather than a hinderance. so yes, the idea of the mysterious doesn't necessarily imply a God.

Aporia seems the natural outcome of philosophical discussion; silence follows. — Banno

The mysterious, the numinous, the spiritual (however you may take that contested word) are all available to the atheist. As I often say, of the people I have met, the most crassly materialist have tended to be the theists, not the atheists. A little thing like belief in God sometimes only brings with it one thing... belief in God.

I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious — Jack Cummins

I’ll follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends
Until I find where the truth is hiding.

Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!

Of course, from my previous post on philosophical mysteries, people probably realise that I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious. — Jack Cummins

For me "mysteries" are not the inexplicable or (merely) ineffable – certainly not woo-woo – but the horizons, or sublimity, of reasoning. Or as Camus says "The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits." In this way I advocate silence about g/G – setting aside all the usual abracadabra glossolalia chatter (e.g. theism, apologetics) – in the spirit of the apophatic tradition (via negativa): antitheism.

@180 Proof
Your silent about god because you believe in an apophatic version or because you don't believe in the possibility of God?

I definitely think that the mysterious does not suppose the existence of God. In many ways, arriving at the idea of God may be too much of an easy solution. I prefer to keep very big open roaring 'why's . It is not as if we even have to sign an agreement on the matter of the existence of God, like Thomas More being asked to sign one to allow Henry V111 to divorce and have more wives.

Well, as you may have noticed, I agree with this.

I am not sure if we have actually agreed on anything before.

I don't spoon feed trolls.

@180 Proof
You mean your too chicken to answer!

I mean you're too lazy or too illiterate to glean some understanding from what I've written (and from the link included). I base that assessment both on your question here and the run-on bilge of sophmoric Dunning-Kruger gibberish in your post history. Yeah, kid, if I'm "chicken", then just you're chickenshit.

@180 Proof

Same old formatting,cliches,lame humour and venting.

Grow a pair,Mr runner!