if you’re a devout Christian, ignore this thread — it doesn’t apply to you. It will only hurt your feelings. Go elsewhere and be well. — Mikie

A devout Chistian is not necessatily a fanatic, a zealously religious or someone who cannot think rationally, but instead he (for brevity) believes blindly in his religion and God and reacts badly in the presense of views different than his own, as if his llfe depends on his beliefs.
In fact, I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive because it invalidates believers' intelligence.
(To make one thing clear, I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer".)

And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. Your tone is authoritative and you show a good deal of arrogance --a definite "I know better" attitude. I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity.

Now, you might call me critical. You would be right. I am. But on a personal basis and for specific and justified reasons, which I have explained.

(I'll add some observations that are peripheral to the opening post, please let me know or remove if it veers too far off topic.)

A kind of mass hysteria:

Benny Hinn - Raw Anointing of the Spirit (1)
^{— Apr 8, 2010 · 10m:24s}
Kenneth Hagin Explosion In The Holy Ghost
^{— Jun 20, 2023 · 1m}
One Of The Most Powerful Move Of God In History - Rodney Howard-Browne & Németh Sándor
^{— Jul 19, 2023 · 5m:7s}

By and large harmless, though I find employing that to indoctrinate children deplorable.

Another kind of mass hysteria (also some history):

Sweden Quran burning: Protesters storm embassy in Baghdad
^{— Alys Davies · BBC · Jun 29, 2023}
Hundreds attempt to storm Baghdad’s Green Zone over Quran burning
^{— Al Jazeera · Jul 22, 2023}

These provocations are insensitive, triggering the sensitive like so is unmannerly rude — and outlawing it has no place in civilized society. Say, if some society has a culture and tradition of biting satire, then it's not up to someone else to impede on that. Likewize for critique of religions.

'Not everything that is legal is ethical': Josep Borrell condemns Quran burning and religious hatred
^{— Jorge Liboreiro · Euronews · Jul 26, 2023}

Hmm Stories that won't go away:

Burning of Qur’an in Stockholm funded by journalist with Kremlin ties
^{— Jennifer Rankin · The Guardian · Jan 27, 2023}
BRIEF: dr·dk reports that a Quran burning inspired Russian intelligence to stage fake protests
^{— various · May 7, 2023}
Sweden says it's target of Russia-backed disinformation over NATO, Koran burnings
^{— Simon Johnson, Johan Ahlander, William Maclean · Reuters · Jul 26, 2023}

Secretly using the sensitive to trigger anger/violence? Nothing new I guess.

Religions have impacts on others and therefore warrant some attention.

@Mikie :lol: Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! Are you and I the only two accused of such so far? Probably not!
I might be in front of you as I had more than 1 accuse me so. Yay!

this post seems motivated by a fairly bigoted conception of religion. Not all religion is necessarily at odds with naturalism and science, so the dichotomy set up is a false one. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I never set up such a dichotomy. Any bigotry is projection on the readers’ part. I made no claims about the value of religion. In fact I’ve often been a staunch supporter of religions. For evidence, look at anything I’ve written for the last 5 years.

You’re just misreading me. The point should be clear by both the title and what’s written. It’s a narrow one— it does not make sweeping claims about religion.

Anytime someone gives an argument in support of their beliefs, even if it's in defense of the Earth being flat, their applying reason to defend their belief. — Sam26

Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science.

Do you consider folks such as Dan Dennett, Sam Harris et al, deserving of the title 'philosopher?' — universeness

Not really. If they are it’s for reasons apart from critiques of faith.

I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer". — Alkis Piskas

Cool.

I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive — Alkis Piskas

Oh.

And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. — Alkis Piskas

Well that doesn’t sound too good for me.

From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. — Alkis Piskas

Well then you “gathered” wrong. You’re welcome to review anything I’ve written over the years to see why.

I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity. — Alkis Piskas

:rofl:

Thanks pal.

Welcome brother! To the group of TPF members, described by another TPF member as fanatic! — universeness

Bound to happen whenever one brings up Christianity — or any belief with strong emotional aspects. You get both the thin-skinned faithful and the non-believers who come to display their sanctimony by rushing to the defense of those being “attacked” (even when no such attack exists).

Too bad so few bother to read (or read carefully). What can you do.

Hypothetical thesis: The God Xhandizi is the one true God. He was revealed by a man in Bora Bora. He is known to have one thousand eyes and fifteen heads. If you don’t believe in him you go to hell.

Questions: does he care about us? What would we do without him, morally speaking? Some say he only has 10 heads— let’s discuss. How does he manifest in the world? Is he only metaphorical? If we don’t believe, should we be worried about the consequences? Is he infinite? Who created him? Is he even a “he”?

—

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore?

Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? — Mikie

For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots.

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments. Why is this easier to ignore than other (similar) claims? Or is it easier to ignore? — Mikie

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. The perception (or delusion if you prefer) of having evidence, reasons and arguments is why certain cults/religions are taken more seriously by those who believe in them.
It’s pretty simple, not sure what the merit is in your inquiry.

For the reasons already presented in this thread. Essential features of your worldview emerged from Christianity, things like the emphasis on ultimate truth, and progress toward a better world. You just can't swing a dead cat in the philosophical realm without smashing into elements of Christianity or its roots. — frank

From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that.

From history, not Christianity. Religion once dominated man-kinds worldview, so its only natural the further back you go the more religiosity you must account for. Christianity being present in the past doesnt grant merit to Christianity and ideas that took root at a time when Christianity was dominant doesn’t mean Christianity was essential to the idea. If you want to claim it was then you need to provide good reasons why that is the case. Good luck with that. — DingoJones

In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage?

Then we define philosophy very differently. Anyone can argue in favor of their beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s philosophy … or science. — Mikie

Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy. They may not be trained in the use of these tools, but they're using these tools nonetheless. I think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy. If anyone has beliefs about ethics, metaphysics, religious arguments, political beliefs, even beliefs about certain games, they are doing philosophy. If you make an argument about your beliefs in defense of why you believe something is morally wrong, then you are doing moral philosophy, even if you haven't studied moral philosophy. In fact, if you're a thinking person then you do philosophy on some level.

In a similar spirit to the OP: how do people end up on a philosophy forum without knowing anything about their own ideological heritage? — frank

Im not sure what your point is. I suppose people could end up on a philosophy forum without knowing much at all.

It wouldn’t be easier to ignore, since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments. — DingoJones

But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed?

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre.

Part of what philosophy does is to examine various beliefs and belief systems in relation to reality (physical or metaphysical). Some of the philosophical tools used to examine these beliefs are logic (correct reasoning), epistemology, and linguistic analysis. To the extent that people use these three tools they are doing philosophy. — Sam26

That’s all very nice. It’s not philosophy in the sense I mean. I don’t agree with your particular characterization. So my former point stands.

I think it's a mistake to think that the only people who can do philosophy are those trained in philosophy. — Sam26

I never said that though.

All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives. — universeness

In that case, don't take a simplistic view, but instead a nuanced one, and condemn the nefarious purposes and not religion as a whole. It's pretty obvious that most things in human life have both positive and negative aspects.

In your first part I understand you to mean you think religious votaries should be confined to interactions with other religious votaries. I see this as a partial curtailment of free speech. — ucarr

It may not have been clear, but I wasn't advocating judicial curtailments of discussion; I was merely saying that in my opinion theology is not a part of general philosophy; they are separate disciplines for good reason.

Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire. — javra

Do you think that what "most" think is important? That aside, I haven't said anything about different economic conditions as related to happiness, but now that you've brought it up, I doubt there is a clear correlation between economic prosperity and happiness. I'm sure there have been studies conducted that you could consult if you are interested.

Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic. — javra

The openness I'm speaking about is the absence of egoic interests. If you haven't encountered that in people, all I can suggest is that you get out more. Did you perchance know Mother Theresa and Gandhi personally?

I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation. — javra

I don't see why not since this thread has hardly been a paragon of staying on topic, and I wouldn't see such a discussion as being off-topic anyway. @Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. If you want to argue for reincarnation, then you must think it is special, so have at it...or not...but if not, then be honest and say you don't want to instead of hiding behind the excuse that it would be off-topic.

Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, nor a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously?

Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? — Mikie

I think it indicates incomprehension of the formative role of Christian philosophy in Western culture.

Christianity is the most enduring and influential legacy of the ancient world, and its emergence the single most transformative development in Western history. Even the increasing number in the West today who have abandoned the faith of their forebears, and dismiss all religion as pointless superstition, remain recognisably its heirs. Seen close-up, the division between a sceptic and a believer may seem unbridgeable. Widen the focus, though, and Christianity's enduring impact upon the West can be seen in the emergence of much that has traditionally been cast as its nemesis: in science, in secularism, and even in atheism.

... Ranging in time from the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC to the on-going migration crisis in Europe today, and from Nebuchadnezzar to the Beatles, it will explore just what it was that made Christianity so revolutionary and disruptive; how completely it came to saturate the mind-set of Latin Christendom; and why, in a West that has become increasingly doubtful of religion's claims, so many of its instincts remain irredeemably Christian. The aim is twofold: to make the reader appreciate just how novel and uncanny were Christian teachings when they first appeared in the world; and to make ourselves, and all that we take for granted, appear similarly strange in consequence. We stand at the end-point of an extraordinary transformation in the understanding of what it is to be human: one that can only be fully appreciated by tracing the arc of its parabola over millennia. — Jacket copy, Tom Holland: Dominion - the Making of the Western Mind

Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. — Janus

Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated.

Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. — Tom Storm

:lol: No hatred buddy.

I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. — Tom Storm

Guilty as charged. Apparently TOO simple.

Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously? — Tom Storm

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special.

To tell someone who we barely know, or do not know at all, that their considerations regarding their own worldview are a waste of time — creativesoul

Complete straw man. Not once did I say that. — Mikie

You did not say it. True. It's exactly what you did though.

All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.

You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time. — creativesoul

I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP.

So, let me get this straight...

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you? That it's not a waste of time for anyone else?

Really now.

Sigh.

Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated. — Mikie

Cheers, I appreciate the appreciation.

My work here is done...

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special. — Mikie

Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me.

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you? — creativesoul

Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear.

What a load of bullshit! — creativesoul

Bye.

Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me. — Tom Storm

Any time.



:up:

All sorts of people pose your target questions for very different reasons that you think or may be aware of. You do not know all the reasons that others pose such questions. You must know at least that much in order to know that it is a waste of time. You do not know whether or not posing such questions, or entertaining such considerations are a waste of time.

You can't know that, yet you speak with such certainty, and have been zealously defending the claims(akin to Christian apologetics) despite the fact that many here have given you plenty enough to realize that some people may not be wasting their time.
— creativesoul

I know it for myself. I think I’ve been clear that this is my opinion— and only applicable to a narrow case, which you’d know if you deigned to read the OP. — Mikie

You're saying that such questions are a waste of time for you... and only you?
— creativesoul

Nope. I feel they’re a waste of time for others too. As I think was clear. — Mikie

What's clear is that you neglected to address the argument that shows the problem in your own worldview.

But remember: everyone thinks they have good reasons, evidence, and sound arguments. True, I didn’t specify that this person believes this “delusionally,” as you said — but given that it’s obviously made up, isn’t that assumed? — Mikie

I didnt say “think they have good reasons, evidence and sound arguments”. I said “since they can provide reasons, evidence and arguments.” and I said that because YOU said “Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of reasons and evidence and arguments.”. You didnt say “think they have good evidence” or any such caveat. Your question was sloppily phrased.
I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean.

To claim this isn’t easier to ignore is just crazy to me. If this isn’t easy to ignore, then nothing is easy to ignore. Maybe that’s your position, I don’t know. But it strikes me as bizarre. — Mikie

I didnt make that claim, as explained above this is your misunderstanding of my response to the question YOU framed.
So your question is, including the delusional caveat, is something like this:
“Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“
Is that right? You want to know if all delusional belief should be considered delusional? Who could this request for a distinction possibly be directed at? Not theists, the delusional themselves but surely not atheists because by definition they hold all religions/gods to be in the same category of delusion.
Bizarre indeed.

No he’s not, that better describes you. Fuck off.

I may be wrong but presumably @Mikie would apply this principle to atheists too for the same reasons.

:kiss: As you wish...

p1. In order to know that doing X is a waste of time for others, one must know each and every reason that others had, have, or will have for doing X as well as each and every causal affect/effect that doing X had, has, or will have on others.

p2. It's impossible to know each and every reason that others had, have, or will have for doing X as well as each and every causal affect/effect that doing X had, has, or will have on others.

C. It's impossible to know that doing X is a waste of time for others.


Let X be talking about God.