Religion

[Immanuel Can]

And if not, then what additional sign would the "entity" have to perform in order to convince you?

Spawn another universe.

This one not good enough for you?

[Univalence]

This one not good enough for you?

This one's perfectly fine. I am just not (yet) convinced that it's created.

When I see a 'created universe' with my own eyes - then I would be happy to extrapolate this to our universe also.

[Immanuel Can]

And if I assert being an Atheist but you are TELLING me that I'm a co-religious believer when I LACK belief, you are inappropriately ignoring what the atheist means.

Enlighten me. What do you think the term "Atheist" means?

In particular, do you think it means someone who knows something, or knows nothing?

And do you think he's speaking for himself alone, or making a universal truth claim?

Which way is it?

BOTH! Some are agnostic athiests and others are gnostic atheist.

Fine. Let's start there.

Agnostic Atheists know nothing about God, and just don't want Him to exist. Granted. But what does a Gnostic Atheist know, precisely? If it's "That God does not exist," then how does he come to know that? If it's not that, then what other relevant thing does he know?

I now KNOW that you CAN rule out religious beings upon learning how to reason...you can become atheist AND gnostic (certain).

Then it shouldn't be hard to say what your reasons are for "ruling out religious beings." What are they?

You mentioned how you think 'religion' is a word made up by atheists.

No, not "made up by." Used by, and now abused by.

The word has a specific etymology, and has transformed over time, as I said. Dr. Keith Ward has a good essay outlining exactly how the word transformed. But you may not be interested in it...I'll happily give you the title if you are.

The word "atheist" BY the religious groups will treat anyone NOT of their own group as 'relatively atheist'

Not so.

However, there is a small truth to it, in that ancient Romans dubbed early Christians "Atheists" for failing to believe in as many gods as the ancient Romans did. However, I suspect modern Atheists would not embrace monotheists into their camp, so that's an antiquated misusage.

if, as you think, atheism is some form of 'positive' belief.

I only asked you if you thought it was. Apparently you do, and I've asked you to share the basis for your "rational" knowledge of the non-existence of God. That's fair.

An "agnostic" to you is one who is capable of being convinced...

If he is agnostic, he literally does "not know" anything for certain. If he is a rational being, that means he's capable of being convinced. If he's not, he's not.

Your mistake (if sincere) is that there is no such thing as (4), decided (gnostic) atheists,

I disagree with that claim. I believe Atheists are irrational disbelievers. They may well have "decided," but they lack sufficient warrant for their positive claim that God does not exist. But I'm keen to have you disprove me about that, if you can.

Ironically, Richard Dawkins agrees with me entirely about that. He refuses to be called an "Atheist" because he says it's irrational. Instead, he calls himself a "firm agnostic." (If you doubt he says it, I can link a video with him actually doing it, and adamantly.)

You don't believe...

Perhaps you should maybe ask me what I believe, as I am asking you...rather than blithely assuming you already know. Maybe you're reacting to me as if I'm some kind of "religious" person with which you're familiar...but you so often impute to me beliefs I don't personally have, that I am made to think you don't really know what I believe.

Are you at least not a 'relative' atheist of some other theism?

No, because Atheist means "no God(s). The one thing that, say a Muslim and I would agree upon is that there is a Creator. That would not be a point either of us would dispute to the other. But what we would dispute is the specific character and nature of God.

But you complained that the atheist created the term 'religion'?

No. See above.

Some of us are neither capable of being converted

That might be true. But if it is, it's not a compliment. It means that such people have decided beforehand to accept no amount of evidence, and no rational arguments as compelling. In short, they've stopped learning. They've simply foreclosed on what reality is allowed to reveal to them. And how is that a noble thing to do?

I understand anonymity.

Good. That's all I suggest.

Could you maybe be brief, and just ask one clear question with no odd subordinations or unconventional syntax? I want to be fair to whatever you're trying to say.

Just read over a few times.

I did, and am well-versed in the use of standard grammar in English. But I couldn't make literal sense out of some of your sentences without also imputing irrationality to you, and I didn't want to do that. So instead of accusing you of irrationality, I simply asked if you could use standard grammar, avoiding convoluted subordinations and things like dangling pronouns.

That way, I would be able not to misunderstand you. And I'm sure that's what you'd prefer.

[Immanuel Can]

When I see a 'created universe' with my own eyes - then I would be happy to extrapolate this to our universe also.

Apparently not. Apparently, all the obvious design in nature is not something capable of impressing you.

Actually, the Bible speaks of this: it says,

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... "(Romans 1)

You can shoot the messenger, but I'm just telling you how God says it is. If you don't like it, your argument's not with me...

[Univalence]

Apparently not. Apparently, all the obvious design in nature is not something capable of impressing you.

You are trivially impressed by cheap parlour tricks. I have higher standards.

You can shoot the messenger, but I'm just telling you how God says it is. If you don't like it, your argument's not with me...

That's what I keep telling you also. I expect more from an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being. Much more!

My only beef with you is your tolerance of God's moral mediocrity.

But here's an important question: What does an immortal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity need an emotion such as 'wrath' for?
Do you ever feel 'wrath' towards ants?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... "(Romans 1)

God is not a real being but is a symbol. People created symbols. At one time just about everybody believed that God was materially real like a big person and thinking that all ideas originate somewhere outside the human mind.

st Paul was a very clever and influential man whose greatest creative act was to elevate the spirit over the literal meaning.

[Belinda]

By "futurology" which I said is interpretative, I meant forecasting. I don't understand what stochastics has to do with interpretation.

Stochastics/forecasting - they mean broadly the same thing. Prediction in the face of uncertainty.

So, IF one were to be omniscient (e.g can perfectly predict the future) then the outcome which represents our maximum human utility at some point in future is 'God'.

The guiding light in the darkness.
Utopia. Heaven. Shangri-La. End of human suffering. All that jazz.

Maybe the very word 'God' is so imbued with the belief that it has a real referrent that 'God' is not an inspiring name for what someone holds to be the ultimate value.

The world is in a turmoil of competing cultures. We all need a religion (if that word too is not past its sell by date) which all the disparate peoples can devote themselves to. I guess such a 'religion' has to evolve, it can't be created from an armchair. At present Western European culture is globally accepted. However Western European cultural values are based upon cultural relativity. St Paul's initiative remains relevant to religion in the time of cultural relativity, the spirit not the letter:

The Spirit, Not the Letter
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

[Scott Mayers]

Enlighten me. What do you think the term "Atheist" means?

In particular, do you think it means someone who knows something, or knows nothing?

And do you think he's speaking for himself alone, or making a universal truth claim?

Which way is it?

BOTH! Some are agnostic athiests and others are gnostic atheist.

Fine. Let's start there.

Agnostic Atheists know nothing about God, and just don't want Him to exist. Granted. But what does a Gnostic Atheist know, precisely? If it's "That God does not exist," then how does he come to know that? If it's not that, then what other relevant thing does he know?

I question the underlined addition here. Why do you think this is a necessary part of one being an Agnostic Atheist? I certainly did not desire that we have no 'creator' that cares for us and provides ultimate justice when I was agnostic. I just literally didn't know enough about any specific religion's presumed reality in light of the fact that there is at least more than ONE religion. One can want the comfort of some power beyond the apparent lack of consistent favoritism by nature to any or all living things. But wanting a type of loving super parent that can repair injustices in life is not the same as such a being to exist outside of us making it true by example upon our children.

I now KNOW that you CAN rule out religious beings upon learning how to reason...you can become atheist AND gnostic (certain).

Then it shouldn't be hard to say what your reasons are for "ruling out religious beings." What are they?

(1)I lack the power to observe beyond my particular life's existence. If a God is absent in the physical sense to us, what potential evidence suffices to determine THAT some being even exists at all?

(2)People are prone to err. Thus the ones making claims about what they 'know' for whatever possible experiences they could qualify as sufficient to know, are prone to misinterpreting their experiences, are capable of misappropriating shared experiences with the same interpretation, have the capacity to be sincerely deluded, have the possibility to mental illnesses, and have the capacity to be deceptive and/or be deceived. This means that any claims about things by people are not sufficient to PROVE their claims universally true for other people beyond themselves.

(3)(a) If only one particular religion is correct, there are still more than one religion. Which of the infinite possible religions that we can create would be true. (b) Would it be rationally pragmatic to think you can disprove an infinity of these possible claims?

These you can start off with to attempt to answer. But they suffice to hold a position against all religions for the incapacity of any one of these to be provable NOR disprovable. If such a particular religion is correct,...

(4) None can be disprovable. Never mind that you might be able to positively identify your experience of some religion's God and its whole systemic set of beliefs coinciding with them should you witness this first hand, but how can there be evidence that can rule out ANY claims?

My Gnostic take against specific religious beliefs are too many to list here. So begin with the general sample reasons above for a start. But note that I also

(5) ...would not even require calling myself 'Atheist' if it weren't for the FORCE of those who ARE religious that impose their beliefs upon me in some derogatory way. That society biases a force upon us to follow certain claims as 'true' to justify moral rules or law with the expected burden to prove otherwise when not possible, is a form of abuse by the particular religious people in power upon most of those not OF that particular religion, whether it be of another religion or to those who lack it. Thus, the only reason OF a stance against religion to exist at all begins with the abuses of those imposing upon us some 'faith' where we have no reason to have it in the first place.

You mentioned how you think 'religion' is a word made up by atheists.

No, not "made up by." Used by, and now abused by.

The word has a specific etymology, and has transformed over time, as I said. Dr. Keith Ward has a good essay outlining exactly how the word transformed. But you may not be interested in it...I'll happily give you the title if you are.

The word describes those kinds of beliefs that regard living factors beyond our physical present lives, regardless of evidence nor quantity of the impossible infinity of claims that others can make. The 'abuses' originate FROM the religious who impose upon OTHERS their strict beliefs about what is true of some power we have no means of countering.

Non-believer: "Why am I being punished by you?"
Believer: "You are not. God is punishing you THROUGH me. You'll have to take that up with Him."

How can anyone get out of this kind of abuse? At least if the religious person were able to be held accountable to their 'own' claims, the onus would require they treat the non-believer with the same kind of respect the non-believer is compelled to argue should they be the one abusing. This extends any abuses to a psychological abuse against the non-believer.

The word "atheist" BY the religious groups will treat anyone NOT of their own group as 'relatively atheist'

Not so.

However, there is a small truth to it, in that ancient Romans dubbed early Christians "Atheists" for failing to believe in as many gods as the ancient Romans did. However, I suspect modern Atheists would not embrace monotheists into their camp, so that's an antiquated misusage.

Wait, you argue against 'relative' claims of moral truths based upon a specific distinct set of beliefs OF a particular religion to be uniquely correct. So your beef against the atheist should count for the other religions that also disagree with your interpretation of the truth at least relatively. It is NOT an antiquated concept. You believe that the God of the other religions is lacking substance or is 'mythical' in the same way an atheist would be towards all religions.

Could you maybe be brief, and just ask one clear question with no odd subordinations or unconventional syntax? I want to be fair to whatever you're trying to say.

Just read over a few times.

I did, and am well-versed in the use of standard grammar in English. But I couldn't make literal sense out of some of your sentences without also imputing irrationality to you, and I didn't want to do that. So instead of accusing you of irrationality, I simply asked if you could use standard grammar, avoiding convoluted subordinations and things like dangling pronouns.

That way, I would be able not to misunderstand you. And I'm sure that's what you'd prefer.

Then learn some general Linguistics, as I have. You'd be surprised to learn that there is no such thing as a uniquely 'correct' and shared grammar. I can tell by your own spelling and grammar that it is different than mine. But you don't see me complaining about your own style of expression. I can adapt with better flexibility in understanding this, but know it is not easy to implement. Why is it my onus to appeal uniquely to your particular country's language rules? I challenge you to find any language outside of formal math or logic that has a consistent grammar without exceptions!

If you find something amiss, such as a "dangling pronoun", point it out so that I can correct the link. My form of 'pronoun' rule that I'm aware of is to assume the last name mentioned if wanting to replace with a generic pronoun unless it is understood in context. But that context can vary and ambiguity is not always able to be removed without speaking strictly formal and robotic.

[Univalence]

Maybe the very word 'God' is so imbued with the belief that it has a real referrent that 'God' is not an inspiring name for what someone holds to be the ultimate value.

Yep. The highest value. The sum total of all values perhaps?

The world is in a turmoil of competing cultures. We all need a religion (if that word too is not past its sell by date) which all the disparate peoples can devote themselves to.

Humanism. We are all stuck in this space-rock together.

I guess such a 'religion' has to evolve, it can't be created from an armchair.

The democratic process and social dialectic is the mechanism by which it evolves.

The Spirit, Not the Letter
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

There's no need to interpret that in religious context. It's sufficient to recognize that all language, all logic, all arguments, all literature, is plagued by incompleteness and inconsistency.

Which is as simple as saying: It's impossible to capture our highest values in words, for the spirit (true meaning) is always lost in the short-comings of language.

[Belinda]

Legalism is using God's word to enforce your will.

Anonymous

The legalist individual might try to justify his actions by reference to authoritative words but cannot or will not perceive the spirit of the message. Then my recourse is to present myself as atheist.

[Univalence]

The legalist individual might try to justify his actions by reference to authoritative words but cannot or will not perceive the spirit of the message. Then my recourse is to present myself as atheist.

Precisely. The error is the very attempt to try to ground "truth" in language, when languages which capture and preserve meaning do not exist.

And so the opposite is just as true. When an atheist doesn't understand objective morality (because they too think in words) it's just as valid a recourse to present myself as a theist.

Theist/atheist - just words. There is no empirical difference between the two camps.

[FlashDangerpants]

I gave an excellent challenge to you: IF the Atheist is so 'evil', AND we lack a belief in the delusions you want us to default some faith in, then WHY wouldn't it be MORE rational of an Atheist to PRETEND not to be 'atheist' but rather some religiously devout thinker imposing wisdom behind the perfect safety of anonymity? IF YOU are the true believer you think is so virtuous, there would be no need for you to hide as you do. If you are so God-loving, then that supreme power you claim you believe in would suffice to be not NEEDING YOUR POWER of persuasion when you think it is as some 'genetic' factor known by us without a need for others to convey.

Mate, I'm an atheist, and even I can see that you are losing your shit like a madman here. None of that challenge makes any sense at all, the word "excellent" has never been asked to work so hard in all of history.

?
Immanuel Can, as many religious people, think of atheism as a unique position that is not a mere restatement of a default of ignorance about gods, but a form of 'anti-religion'. That is, they assume that being atheist is an intentional counterpart OF religion such that it is the work of their own God's counter offender, or their "Devil". They assume we sincerely believe that their supreme being exists but that we are deviant tricksters of their own anti-god's servants of evil.

And so to show this rationale is amiss, I am proposing that IF TRUE, then the ultimate sincere evil would then be the atheistic demon pretending to be a servant of their superior God. So, if the atheist is actually powerfully deviant, he would be one who fakes BEING the devout religious believer of their God.

Thus, the reasonable question to Immanuel Can is to prove that he himself is NOT one of these most deviant 'atheists' of his own interpretation of what I am. [I won't speak of you as I don't know you. For all I know you too could be religious and intending to feign a position of the ABSURD atheist of his intent on playing the scarecrow. I HAVE discovered this possibility as real too!]

That there is a big fat slice of pure foolish. I think Can is ridiculous self congratulatory intellectually dishonest little pissant that I can barely tolerate to converse with, and I am probably largely done with him for 2019 tbh. But he thinks we are in error to not believe in God, and at a guess I assume he thinks that we are supporting this oversight by turning a blind eye to whatever it is that convinces him there is one. That's a very long way from claiming that I am actively in the service of Satan. Your whole thing is the worst of strawmen.

As for the tinfoil hat silliness of false flag, secretly christian, atheist infiltrators you are on about ... sure, I totally believe that's a real problem in the world.

[FlashDangerpants]

Religion is just another category which contains many distinct things.

This is exactly what I'm saying...too many things, and with no distinction being made among them.

...the category is used because it is useful and it contains stuff.

Not really. It's used because the people who use it are ignorant of any possible value to making distinctions. It's like the category "Orientals": a vaguely insulting and insultingly vague collective noun that has utility only to cultivating prejudicial thinking.

It's really not informative. It's like the category you use to advocate for it, "stuff": such a vague collective noun fails to differentiate in any meaningful way. Essentially, it merely clouds judgment, instead of clarifying.

Even experts in the secular study of "religion" can't make up their collective minds what the right way to distinguish a "religion" really is. If you look at the literature, you'll see that's true. So it's not just my say-so, it's the reality.

This is boring and stupid. All you ever do is pick a couple of sentences to argue against and ignore the point I make. I don't think that is very good, or very worthwhile.

[Belinda]

Even experts in the secular study of "religion" can't make up their collective minds what the right way to distinguish a "religion" really is. If you look at the literature, you'll see that's true. So it's not just my say-so, it's the reality.

What experts have you consulted, Immanuel? Religion is devotion to a common purpose and that being so it's sufficiently inclusive to cover Nazism , and Daesh, besides the primitive religions of place and natural forces that preceded the Axial Age.

[Nick_A]

A religion line Christianity initiating with a conscious source has two theoretical purposes. The first is to supply the quality of energy needed for redemption. It serves the inner Man. The second is to provide a moral structure necessary for people to respect each other within society. It refers to our personality. Secularized religion is expressed at the outer exoteric level while efforts at redemption begin at the inner or esoteric level. While the esoteric is concerned with what we DO, the esoteric is concerned with what we ARE.


Obviously the disputes you referred to take place within the exoteric level which expresses the hypocrisy of the human condition

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works." Meister Eckhart.

For a society to accept the value of human rights and further them through collective action there must be agreement on the voluntary obligations essential to make rights possible. Humanity is far from such agreement. In fact sincere attempts to defined the problem of the fallen human condition will appear insulting to people living with delusion so meaningful attempts towards “awakening” will be met by violent rejection.

For a society to become capable of functioning by voluntary obligations requires the esoteric religious influence to awaken human being to higher values then prestige and power. But society doesn’t want higher values.

If the perfectly just (i.e., righteous) man were to come into the world…“He will be scourged, racked, bound. He will have his eyes burned out. And at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.” Plato's Republic

There is something about witnessing the truth of the human condition in the context of what we are which brings out the worst in people. That is why freedom for the essence of religion cannot have a dominant influence in society. It isn’t wanted. Only a minority will distinguish between exoteric believers and experiencing esoteric practices which serve the awakening the essence of religion is designed for..

The trouble with discussing religion is that without clarification the word is meaningless. Without beginning with describing the quality of religion being discussed it only leads to arguments. Without distinguishing between esoteric Christianity as an example and its aim for redemption and secularized Christianity and its aim for social indoctrination, Christianity must devolve into Christendom or man made Christianity.