Christianity

[Belinda]

Nature made Donald Trump, not God.

If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

A lot of people cannot understand a reasonable religion, so far. indeed the details of a reasonable religion are still being thrashed out. The Quakers come closest, I think.

Again, there's no "reasonable" nor "unreasonable" in a world merely constructed by "Nature." There is only whatever IS. That's all that can be said, and there's an end of it.

But you don't believe that, clearly. And you don't live like that, clearly. And you certainly don't talk like that here. So why do you continue to say you believe in something (sovereign "Nature") that you do not actually believe in? Wouldn't it be more rational to make what you say and what you believe coordinate? When none of the propositions you assert logically connect with the conclusions you assert, how can you be living "rationally"?

Right and wrong categories are man made. Mankind evolved naturally and then early in history mankind began to change culturally. Human language facilitated cultural change. Human language is defined by its capability of referring to abstract ideas by means of symbols.
The Bible contains a history of the idea of God. God evolved from the tribal deity of a Nomadic Middle Eastern tribe ,partly through Greek influences ,to the OT prophets to Jesus of Nazareth , Paul of Tarsus,and Muhammad.

The Egyptian pharaoh known for introducing a form of monotheism was Akhenaten. He shifted the focus of Egyptian worship to the sun-disk, Aten, previously an aspect of the sun god Ra, and is often considered the first monotheist. Some scholars debate whether his religion, Atenism, was strictly monotheistic or rather henotheistic (acknowledging other gods while focusing on one) or monolatristic (worshiping one god without denying the existence of others).
(Wiki)

God is still evolving and ideas of God changed abruptly with Western Renaissance, Trumpism, Zionism, Capitalism, Deobandi(Taliban), Sunni Hanbali (Saudi), and many other sects. I am not sure what your favourite sect is called, Immanuel.

Mea culpa! Immanuel Can, I'm not as good as I'd like to be.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Only a tiny minority of believers are Rogerian. Only in the West are there sufficient non-believers to host slightly more proportionately.

[Belinda]

Only a tiny minority of believers are Rogerian. Only in the West are there sufficient non-believers to host slightly more proportionately.

what is the statistical source for "only in the West----"

[Immanuel Can]

Nature made Donald Trump, not God.

If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

A lot of people cannot understand a reasonable religion, so far. indeed the details of a reasonable religion are still being thrashed out. The Quakers come closest, I think.

Again, there's no "reasonable" nor "unreasonable" in a world merely constructed by "Nature." There is only whatever IS. That's all that can be said, and there's an end of it.

But you don't believe that, clearly. And you don't live like that, clearly. And you certainly don't talk like that here. So why do you continue to say you believe in something (sovereign "Nature") that you do not actually believe in? Wouldn't it be more rational to make what you say and what you believe coordinate? When none of the propositions you assert logically connect with the conclusions you assert, how can you be living "rationally"?

Right and wrong categories are man made.

Then they mean nothing, because "unicorn" and "pixie" are also man-made categories. None of them refers to anything objectively real; only to subjective delusions in which mankind happens to indulge.

God evolved from the tribal deity of a Nomadic Middle Eastern tribe ,partly through Greek influences ,to the OT prophets to Jesus of Nazareth , Paul of Tarsus,and Muhammad.

Well, the "god" of Mo is not the same God, nor are the Greek "gods" the God of the Hebrews. You can easily discern that, since they have vastly different characteristics. The Greek "gods," for example, were polytheistic, and thus not ultimate or omniscient, and were fictitious anyway.

The important question is this: does the human awareness of a "higher being" signal anything real, or is it just another kind of subjective delusion? And that question cannot be answered merely by enumerating the many different human imaginings there can be. The number of possible human delusions about practically anything -- from unicorns to scientific laws -- is almost limitless.

God is still evolving

Not the real one. But human imaginings may be. However they can't be "evolving" in a "good" direction, since, as a nature-only process, evolution doesn't aim at "goods" at all. It just carries on randomly on that score. (At least, that's how the evolutionary story tells it.)

Mea culpa! Immanuel Can, I'm not as good as I'd like to be.

Well, that's true of all of us, B.

But to what conception of morality do you refer when you assess us as "not as good" as something? In a world of "Nature," there's no basis for such an assessment. There, "good" is merely relative to goals, and goals are neither good nor bad; and anything may be "as good" as anything else, or "as bad," at the same time. In fact, there, the words have no real meaning at all. They're mere imaginings.

[Immanuel Can]

Only a tiny minority of believers are Rogerian. Only in the West are there sufficient non-believers to host slightly more proportionately.

what is the statistical source for "only in the West----"

Martin's right. The CIA Factbook states that worldwide, Atheists compose only about 4% of the population, with most of them being in the West. There is another 4% or so that claim agnosticism. Everybody else regards it as at least plausible that some sort of God or gods exist.

Not that polls indicate truth of that proposition. But they do indicate that Martin's telling the truth about where the "non-believers" are.

[Belinda]

If that were true, then there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the man. There cannot be, since whatever your "Nature" creates is just what it creates -- it is, and can be, neither good nor evil. It just is what is. And there is, in fact, no good nor evil, no better nor worse, no right nor wrong, no good politicians nor bad ones. There are only the ones that happen to exist. And so, you would have to give up complaining about the Donald.

But you don't. Which shows that you do believe there are good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse, etc. So it shows you don't really believe that "Nature" is the true explanation for why D. Trump, or me or you exist.

Again, there's no "reasonable" nor "unreasonable" in a world merely constructed by "Nature." There is only whatever IS. That's all that can be said, and there's an end of it.

But you don't believe that, clearly. And you don't live like that, clearly. And you certainly don't talk like that here. So why do you continue to say you believe in something (sovereign "Nature") that you do not actually believe in? Wouldn't it be more rational to make what you say and what you believe coordinate? When none of the propositions you assert logically connect with the conclusions you assert, how can you be living "rationally"?

Right and wrong categories are man made.

Then they mean nothing, because "unicorn" and "pixie" are also man-made categories. None of them refers to anything objectively real; only to subjective delusions in which mankind happens to indulge.

God evolved from the tribal deity of a Nomadic Middle Eastern tribe ,partly through Greek influences ,to the OT prophets to Jesus of Nazareth , Paul of Tarsus,and Muhammad.

Well, the "god" of Mo is not the same God, nor are the Greek "gods" the God of the Hebrews. You can easily discern that, since they have vastly different characteristics. The Greek "gods," for example, were polytheistic, and thus not ultimate or omniscient, and were fictitious anyway.

The important question is this: does the human awareness of a "higher being" signal anything real, or is it just another kind of subjective delusion? And that question cannot be answered merely by enumerating the many different human imaginings there can be. The number of possible human delusions about practically anything -- from unicorns to scientific laws -- is almost limitless.

God is still evolving

Not the real one. But human imaginings may be. However they can't be "evolving" in a "good" direction, since, as a nature-only process, evolution doesn't aim at "goods" at all. It just carries on randomly on that score. (At least, that's how the evolutionary story tells it.)

Mea culpa! Immanuel Can, I'm not as good as I'd like to be.

Well, that's true of all of us, B.

But to what conception of morality do you refer when you assess us as "not as good" as something? In a world of "Nature," there's no basis for such an assessment. There, "good" is merely relative to goals, and goals are neither good nor bad; and anything may be "as good" as anything else, or "as bad," at the same time. In fact, there, the words have no real meaning at all. They're mere imaginings.

I refer , one, not always doing like I say I should do, and two, not communicating as well as I can and should do. The general tendency of my self blame is Aristotelian in that I am not the thing I could be. There are mitigating circumstances for my shortcomings and no doubt your forgiving deity would know all about those.

[Belinda]

Only a tiny minority of believers are Rogerian. Only in the West are there sufficient non-believers to host slightly more proportionately.

what is the statistical source for "only in the West----"

Martin's right. The CIA Factbook states that worldwide, Atheists compose only about 4% of the population, with most of them being in the West. There is another 4% or so that claim agnosticism. Everybody else regards it as at least plausible that some sort of God or gods exist.

Not that polls indicate truth of that proposition. But they do indicate that Martin's telling the truth about where the "non-believers" are.

The CIA Factbook is insufficiently nuanced as to 'atheist' and 'agnosticism' especially when the words are devoid of context. Also the CIA Factbook is naturally a little biased as it's a CIA publication.

[Immanuel Can]

I refer , one, not always doing like I say I should do, and two, not communicating as well as I can and should do.

Why "should"? In a world that you insist is created and governed by nothing but "Nature," why "should" you do anything? Why blame yourself, when "Nature" has no opinion about what you "should" or "should not" have done?

[Immanuel Can]

what is the statistical source for "only in the West----"

Martin's right. The CIA Factbook states that worldwide, Atheists compose only about 4% of the population, with most of them being in the West. There is another 4% or so that claim agnosticism. Everybody else regards it as at least plausible that some sort of God or gods exist.

Not that polls indicate truth of that proposition. But they do indicate that Martin's telling the truth about where the "non-believers" are.

The CIA Factbook is insufficiently nuanced as to 'atheist' and 'agnosticism' especially when the words are devoid of context. Also the CIA Factbook is naturally a little biased as it's a CIA publication.

Let's say that's true. Just what's the margin of error you would attribute to this secular informational source? How badly do you imagine it could be "off"?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Only a tiny minority of believers are Rogerian. Only in the West are there sufficient non-believers to host slightly more proportionately.

what is the statistical source for "only in the West----"

There are bloody nice, decent, kind people all over the place, natural Rogerians. Even among believers. But not formally. And (untrue) belief systems actually handicap it.

And I'm tempted to un-Foe you IC.

[Immanuel Can]

And I'm tempted to un-Foe you IC.

Truth is, I've never been a "foe." I'm just guy with a different understanding from yours. For me, it's never personal. It's about the issues. I don't hate the people with whom I disagree, no matter how strongly.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

And I'm tempted to un-Foe you IC.

Truth is, I've never been a "foe." I'm just guy with a different understanding from yours. For me, it's never personal. It's about the issues. I don't hate the people with whom I disagree, no matter how strongly.

Same here IC. To Foe is just a way of not seeing what people say as there's no point. Different understandings are utterly, abjectly understood, accepted, bowed to. As with Muslims and Christians. Never to be discussed, unless they ask, and they never do. Not in person. Although I have encountered concern for my soul from well meaning Muslims repeatedly. I was in a theology home group, but they were all downstream of belief, so there could be no discussion: I was translated upstream. There is no way downstream from there. From a becalmed mountain rock tarn. Happy to explore issues, as I critique Christianity on many.

[Immanuel Can]

And I'm tempted to un-Foe you IC.

Truth is, I've never been a "foe." I'm just guy with a different understanding from yours. For me, it's never personal. It's about the issues. I don't hate the people with whom I disagree, no matter how strongly.

Same here IC. To Foe is just a way of not seeing what people say as there's no point. Different understandings are utterly, abjectly understood, accepted, bowed to. As with Muslims and Christians. Never to be discussed, unless they ask, and they never do. Not in person.

Muslims and Christians are very different, Martin. Yes, it's true that many Muslims regard the asking of any questions or expressing of any doubts as taboo. And there are some Christians who also are too anxious to do that. Yet I've been here, discussing differences with Atheists and agnostics for a half dozen years, at least -- hardly an indicator of reluctance to discuss disagreements, I think you'll concede.

In fact, my reason for being here, in the first place, is to find out if there are any new or interesting arguments the skeptics can raise, things I don't think have been adequately handled yet, and that I might find challenging to consider. You know -- not the old Euthyphro nonsense, or the old confusion about faith being belief in impossible things, or "how many unliftable rocks can God lift" -- that sort of shallow and easy thing -- but rather, thoughtful, fresh, insightful stuff, the sorts of things you don't find every day. It seemed to me that a philosophy site would be the best place to look for just such challenges.

In the last several years I've gained a few such conversations, I would say. However, in general, I've got to say that I've found that original and interesting critiques are few and far between, even on this site. But I've certainly been forthcoming with people on dealing with the old canards, so I don't think anybody can fault me as one of those shy or reticent believers. People who want to discuss the issues, as opposed to merely trading abuse or posturing, will find me willing to discuss, for sure.

[Belinda]

Truth is, I've never been a "foe." I'm just guy with a different understanding from yours. For me, it's never personal. It's about the issues. I don't hate the people with whom I disagree, no matter how strongly.

Same here IC. To Foe is just a way of not seeing what people say as there's no point. Different understandings are utterly, abjectly understood, accepted, bowed to. As with Muslims and Christians. Never to be discussed, unless they ask, and they never do. Not in person.

Muslims and Christians are very different, Martin. Yes, it's true that many Muslims regard the asking of any questions or expressing of any doubts as taboo. And there are some Christians who also are too anxious to do that. Yet I've been here, discussing differences with Atheists and agnostics for a half dozen years, at least -- hardly an indicator of reluctance to discuss disagreements, I think you'll concede.

In fact, my reason for being here, in the first place, is to find out if there are any new or interesting arguments the skeptics can raise, things I don't think have been adequately handled yet, and that I might find challenging to consider. You know -- not the old Euthyphro nonsense, or the old confusion about faith being belief in impossible things, or "how many unliftable rocks can God lift" -- that sort of shallow and easy thing -- but rather, thoughtful, fresh, insightful stuff, the sorts of things you don't find every day. It seemed to me that a philosophy site would be the best place to look for just such challenges.

In the last several years I've gained a few such conversations, I would say. However, in general, I've got to say that I've found that original and interesting critiques are few and far between, even on this site. But I've certainly been forthcoming with people on dealing with the old canards, so I don't think anybody can fault me as one of those shy or reticent believers. People who want to discuss the issues, as opposed to merely trading abuse or posturing, will find me willing to discuss, for sure.

Scepticism is part of how we get to know what we know.

[Immanuel Can]

Same here IC. To Foe is just a way of not seeing what people say as there's no point. Different understandings are utterly, abjectly understood, accepted, bowed to. As with Muslims and Christians. Never to be discussed, unless they ask, and they never do. Not in person.

Muslims and Christians are very different, Martin. Yes, it's true that many Muslims regard the asking of any questions or expressing of any doubts as taboo. And there are some Christians who also are too anxious to do that. Yet I've been here, discussing differences with Atheists and agnostics for a half dozen years, at least -- hardly an indicator of reluctance to discuss disagreements, I think you'll concede.

In fact, my reason for being here, in the first place, is to find out if there are any new or interesting arguments the skeptics can raise, things I don't think have been adequately handled yet, and that I might find challenging to consider. You know -- not the old Euthyphro nonsense, or the old confusion about faith being belief in impossible things, or "how many unliftable rocks can God lift" -- that sort of shallow and easy thing -- but rather, thoughtful, fresh, insightful stuff, the sorts of things you don't find every day. It seemed to me that a philosophy site would be the best place to look for just such challenges.

In the last several years I've gained a few such conversations, I would say. However, in general, I've got to say that I've found that original and interesting critiques are few and far between, even on this site. But I've certainly been forthcoming with people on dealing with the old canards, so I don't think anybody can fault me as one of those shy or reticent believers. People who want to discuss the issues, as opposed to merely trading abuse or posturing, will find me willing to discuss, for sure.

Scepticism is part of how we get to know what we know.

Skepticism is good, if it's persuadable and based on rational arguments. In that, it contrasts to cyncism, which is the decision to be negative regardless of what information is available or what arguments are offered -- and that's a waste of time. Some people imagine themselves to be skeptical, when all they're really being is cynical. So we have to know the difference.