Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Dubious]

Science is a good tool. It brought us so far. But it is to much of a coward to take us all the way.

There is no way its ever going to take us all the way. For one thing we can never know if a "riddle" is actually ever truly solved.

...but that's a different subject and not part of the OP.

[Reflex]

What most offends me about Trump is his environmental vandalism.

We are going to be the first generation for a very long time to fail to make the world a better place for our children, but where are all the theistic moralists? Mostly applauding Trump for "sticking it to the lefties", wilfully ignoring his wanton short-termist environmental vandalism.

Why are atheists/agnostics so adverse to answering a simple question?

Wait. I think I know why you didn't answer. If you say you are not offended by Trump calling MS-13 "animals," then it is not true that "people are just people"; if you are offended, then you see nothing wrong with the actions of MS-13 because they just people being people.

Sad to see your contribution degrade. I blame Nick. You were sensible until he started whipping you up.

Trump is a liar so I don't much care what he says. The most wild humans are sometimes referred to "animals" by moronic people who fail to appreciate the beauty of other species, nor how much they have in common with those "animals".

Meanwhile Trump is dedicated to wiping animals out - the nonhuman ones. He wants to develop the world, a purely human world of brick, steel, plastic and glass because he lacks even the slightest understanding or appreciation that ecosystems are needed for most people to live. That is because he is safe in his bubble of extreme wealth and privilege and cares not a bit what happens to the poor.

The conjecture about God's existence seemed to cut a bit close to the bone for you so I understand why you would feel safer with politics and playing Nick's anti-secular game rather than addressing the ontology. Doubt must be a scary thing for a theist, but doubt is inevitable unless one refuses to suspend their logic.

You're the one responsible for degrading the conversation, Greta, by going off on some unrelated tangent. The question wasn't about Trump's comment per se; it was about the meaninglessness of your statement, "people are just people." Clearly, that isn't completely true. People are NOT created equally, or at least they do not respond to life the same way.

[Greta]

Why are atheists/agnostics so adverse to answering a simple question?

Wait. I think I know why you didn't answer. If you say you are not offended by Trump calling MS-13 "animals," then it is not true that "people are just people"; if you are offended, then you see nothing wrong with the actions of MS-13 because they just people being people.

Sad to see your contribution degrade. I blame Nick. You were sensible until he started whipping you up.

Trump is a liar so I don't much care what he says. The most wild humans are sometimes referred to "animals" by moronic people who fail to appreciate the beauty of other species, nor how much they have in common with those "animals".

Meanwhile Trump is dedicated to wiping animals out - the nonhuman ones. He wants to develop the world, a purely human world of brick, steel, plastic and glass because he lacks even the slightest understanding or appreciation that ecosystems are needed for most people to live. That is because he is safe in his bubble of extreme wealth and privilege and cares not a bit what happens to the poor.

The conjecture about God's existence seemed to cut a bit close to the bone for you so I understand why you would feel safer with politics and playing Nick's anti-secular game rather than addressing the ontology. Doubt must be a scary thing for a theist, but doubt is inevitable unless one refuses to suspend their logic.

You're the one responsible for degrading the conversation, Greta, by going off on some unrelated tangent. The question wasn't about Trump's comment per se; it was about the meaninglessness of your statement, "people are just people." Clearly, that isn't completely true. People are NOT created equally, or at least they do not respond to life the same way.

No, we were chatting just fine until Nick got you worked up, even though you'd been politely and reasonably been chatting with a secularist for some time and had reached some points of agreement.

People vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are terribly damaged, dysfunctional and destructive and that is inevitable with the law of averages. Someone has to be the worst. Still, I don't think it's helpful to deny the worst of us human status; tyrannical cultures throughout history have done that.

However, just as each individual grows, develops and matures, so do entire societies. We have now largely transcended the base denial of other people their humanity. In fact, some of the more advanced societies are recognising the complexity and sophistication of some other species and conferring a few limited human rights in recognition that their suffering is real and matters to some extent. It is a recognition that they are more than resources, even without a human family, and should never be treated and handled as if insensate objects.

Meanwhile, claiming that other detailed thinkers on philosophy forums are subhuman is simply a meaningless ad hominem.

[Nick_A]

Reflex

According to Greta I got you worked up. I don't know how to take this. Greta is just being Greta. She believes that two people are always at fault: Donald Trump and me. After all she still believes God's last name is Dammit so one has to take her rantings with a grain of salt.

[Greta]

Reflex

According to Greta I got you worked up. I don't know how to take this. Greta is just being Greta. She believes that two people are always at fault: Donald Trump and me. After all she still believes God's last name is Dammit so one has to take her rantings with a grain of salt.

STOP TROLLING! You either have useful comments or not.

Do you deny that R's and my conversation was peaceful until you turned up? The evidence is there in the thread. Troll.

[Nick_A]

Reflex

According to Greta I got you worked up. I don't know how to take this. Greta is just being Greta. She believes that two people are always at fault: Donald Trump and me. After all she still believes God's last name is Dammit so one has to take her rantings with a grain of salt.

STOP TROLLING! You either have useful comments or not.

Do you deny that R's and my conversation was peaceful until you turned up? The evidence is there in the thread. Troll.

Greta do you really believe that Reflex is so weak minded that I could write something and he would go off the deep end? No. it is you who could try the patience of a saint. I can assure you Reflex is not weak minded.

[Reflex]

No, we were chatting just fine until Nick got you worked up, even though you'd been politely and reasonably been chatting with a secularist for some time and had reached some points of agreement.

I beg to differ, but that's neither here nor there.

People vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are terribly damaged, dysfunctional and destructive and that is inevitable with the law of averages. Someone has to be the worst. Still, I don't think it's helpful to deny the worst of us human status; tyrannical cultures throughout history have done that.

On a purely pragmatic level, why should society be burdened with the cost of keeping proven threats alive and in cages? Isn't that dehumanizing?

However, just as each individual grows, develops and matures, so do entire societies.

If self-control leads to altruistic service and self-admiration tends towards the exploitation of others, in which direction are societies moving? Without deep roots in religion, even mature societies will devolve into chaos.

We have now largely transcended the base denial of other people their humanity. In fact, some of the more advanced societies are recognising the complexity and sophistication of some other species and conferring a few limited human rights in recognition that their suffering is real and matters to some extent. It is a recognition that they are more than resources, even without a human family, and should never be treated and handled as if insensate objects.

Human beings are not nearly as evolved as much as you seem to suppose.

Meanwhile, claiming that other detailed thinkers on philosophy forums are subhuman is simply a meaningless ad hominem.

Not if it's true, not if they refuse to follow their logic to the bitter end. For example, When I post excerpts from The Urantia Book or Behold the Spirit (Alan Watts) the mental contortions that take place is quite amazing. I can't do what is done to avoid the conclusions.

[Reflex]

Reflex

According to Greta I got you worked up. I don't know how to take this. Greta is just being Greta. She believes that two people are always at fault: Donald Trump and me. After all she still believes God's last name is Dammit so one has to take her rantings with a grain of salt.

STOP TROLLING! You either have useful comments or not.

Do you deny that R's and my conversation was peaceful until you turned up? The evidence is there in the thread. Troll.

Greta do you really believe that Reflex is so weak minded that I could write something and he would go off the deep end? No. it is you who could try the patience of a saint. I can assure you Reflex is not weak minded.

Actually, I was a bit surprised that Greta didn't see what I was getting at: egalitarianism is the biggest and most destructive fraud ever perpetrated on humans by humans.

[Greta]

Actually, I was a bit surprised that Greta didn't see what I was getting at: egalitarianism is the biggest and most destructive fraud ever perpetrated on humans by humans.

I think you are imagining things or reading too much Murdoch, or both.

Egalitarianism never even came close to being implemented in any jurisdiction. To imagine that it's taken hold anywhere at any time in history is imagination.

Where do you see egalitarianism? I don't see any, anywhere. Never did. I've seen some rules implemented to sometimes protect vulnerable people whom are deemed useful by society from being excessively damaged by witless degenerates. I have never seen egalitarianism in action because people are different to each other, with different wants and needs, different abilities and different relationships.

However, anyone who claims to be human while referring to another person as sub-human is simply kidding themselves and being unnecessarily unpleasant.

[Reflex]

Where do you see egalitarianism? I don't see any, anywhere. Never did. I've seen some rules implemented to sometimes protect vulnerable people whom are deemed useful by society from being excessively damaged by witless degenerates. I have never seen egalitarianism in action because people are different to each other, with different wants and needs, different abilities and different relationships.

Sorry, but I must be living on a different planet than you.

However, anyone who claims to be human while referring to another person as sub-human is simply kidding themselves and being unnecessarily unpleasant.

Are you really so blind and narrowminded that you do not understand that what is being said is no different than saying "You must be born again"?

[Greta]

Where do you see egalitarianism? I don't see any, anywhere. Never did. I've seen some rules implemented to sometimes protect vulnerable people whom are deemed useful by society from being excessively damaged by witless degenerates. I have never seen egalitarianism in action because people are different to each other, with different wants and needs, different abilities and different relationships.

Sorry, but I must be living on a different planet than you.

My planet is not in your imagination, true. You appear to be living in an abstracted dreamland that consists largely of Murdoch media headlines.

However, anyone who claims to be human while referring to another person as sub-human is simply kidding themselves and being unnecessarily unpleasant.

Are you really so blind and narrowminded that you do not understand that what is being said is no different than saying "You must be born again"?

Are you really so inarticulate that you cannot explain yourself properly, not even after all these pages? That you use the same words over and over without variation, explanation or extrapolation suggest that you don't understand what you are saying, just parrotting.

I challenge you to explain the concept of humans and sub-humans clearly without relying on the forgiving vagueness of synedoches. I am not convinced that you can without Googling, though Nick might to come to your rescue with more irrelevant Simone Weil or Einstein quotes to throw everyone off the trail.

[Nick_A]

Reflex wrote: ↑
Wed May 23, 2018 8:41 am

However, anyone who claims to be human while referring to another person as sub-human is simply kidding themselves and being unnecessarily unpleasant.

Are you really so blind and narrowminded that you do not understand that what is being said is no different than saying "You must be born again"?

IMO a very important point Reflex. I’ve witnessed that the secular mind does not experience so cannot respect the hierarchy of human being. Being born again is the experience of metanoia - the change of the soul’s inner direction towards the light referred to by Plato in the Cave analogy. Jesus refers to the hierarchy.

Matthew 11:11 (NIV)

11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I know you can respect this but those like Greta find it insulting since it suggests different qualities of being which opposes their ideas limited to equality on the earthly plane of existence. Jesus refers IMO to the transition between mechanical and conscious evolution.

The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face? ~Thoreau, Walden

Is Thoreau’s observation too insulting to be taken seriously or does it describe an essential truth as to the relativity of human being?

If a person has not experienced the inner change of direction how can they be expected to feel the question of God? When they emotionally reject a Source for creation, the inner change of direction only comes through an intense shock such as a physical accident which opens the mind to the vertical direction of thought.

1 Corinthians 2: 14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

This for me is the essential problem in discussing the question of God. Dualistic reason is insufficient for understanding so there is no real communication when the respect for the quality of intelligence beyond dualistic reason is denied.

[Greta]

Reflex wrote: ↑
Wed May 23, 2018 8:41 am

However, anyone who claims to be human while referring to another person as sub-human is simply kidding themselves and being unnecessarily unpleasant.

Are you really so blind and narrowminded that you do not understand that what is being said is no different than saying "You must be born again"?

IMO a very important point Reflex. I’ve witnessed that the secular mind does not experience so cannot respect the hierarchy of human being. Being born again is the experience of metanoia - the change of the soul’s inner direction towards the light referred to by Plato in the Cave analogy. Jesus refers to the hierarchy.

Still no attempt to explain why you hold the silly belief that secularists are sub-human. Like Reflex, you are unable to clearly articulate what you mean. After all these pages and barely any addressing of the issue, just attacks against amorphous "secularists", as if that's convincing.

Your claims look like a variant of Socrates's comments on the unexamined life but that hardly makes sense since it is theists who are most unquestioningly locked into doctrine - into their "programming".

So what I see here are the hungry egos of people wanting to believe they are better than at least someone. Thus they seek special privilege and status for simply being who they are - believers in the unproven. If you are so desperate for status, work for it!

[Reflex]

Really, Greta?

I'm beginning to suspect if secularists paid less attention words and more attention to their context and meaning, they wouldn't hyperventilate when someone calls MS-13 gangsters "animals" or says something esoteric like "to be fully human is to be more than human."

When man fails to discriminate the ends of his mortal striving, he finds himself functioning on the animal level of existence. He has failed to avail himself of the superior advantages of that material acumen, moral discrimination, and spiritual insight which are an integral part of his cosmic-mind endowment as a personal being.

[attofishpi]

Really, Greta?

I'm beginning to suspect if secularists paid less attention words and more attention to their context and meaning, they wouldn't hyperventilate when someone calls MS-13 gangsters "animals" or says something esoteric like "to be fully human is to be more than human."

When man fails to discriminate the ends of his mortal striving, he finds himself functioning on the animal level of existence. He has failed to avail himself of the superior advantages of that material acumen, moral discrimination, and spiritual insight which are an integral part of his cosmic-mind endowment as a personal being.

White Zombie - More Human than Human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0E0ynyIUsg