My idea of everything

[sthitapragya]

That's an interesting perspective.

I've been on this forum for a few years now. And it will be no surprise to anyone who's spoken with me that I'm a Theist. I've responded to thousands of posts, often at length -- but so far as I can recall, in almost every case the topic was proposed and initially advanced by an Atheist. How about that?

Well, it's tough to respond to a blatant lie when one look at the topics shows that the authorship of topics in this section seems pretty evenly distributed between atheists and theists.

The rest of your post is just boohoo we are good and you are bad. We are fair and you are unfair and that is just childish. Obviously you think so just as I think the exact opposite. What is the point of saying something so pointless? It is human nature. You will think you are in the right just as I will think I am in the right. Even children sometimes understand that.

The fact remains that we are on opposite sides of a section on religion. What we discuss is not philosophy.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes wrote:

This remark doesn't belong on a philosophy of religion board where people come to feel and express the great questions.. It belongs on a political philosophy board in a discussion about illegal aliens crossing the border.

It's an honest reaction to more fools pretending that religion is philosophy.

Honesty - that is something you should try sometime.

Exactly. If discussing religion were philosophy, I would be out of here because I am no philosopher and have never claimed to be one. I joined these fora to learn philosophy and I realized there is nothing here resembling philosophy so I straightaway felt at home. Now I am enjoying it too much to bother with real philosophy so I stayed. The fact that I am here proves that it is not philosophy.

There are a few posters who quote a Kant here and a Socrates there but that is about it. But against that there are those who quote Simone Weil and actually call her a philosopher. If she is one, I am probably the father of philosophy and know everything there is to know about philosophy.

As someone on this forum said so aptly, " If anyone of us were capable of contributing to genuine philosophy, we would be doing it elsewhere instead of wasting our time here."

You might want to try this site.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com

[sthitapragya]

You might want to try this site.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com

Thanks HC. Will check it out.

[Immanuel Can]

The fact remains that we are on opposite sides of a section on religion. What we discuss is not philosophy.

It should be...it should not be the kinds of insults, vague posturing and nonsense we see above. It should be to-the-point, focused on ideologies not personalities, and using reasons not empty rhetoric to achieve its goals.

It is philosophy that makes possible the arbitration between views. If we stuck to using the methods of philosophy, we would get places. And that would be great. But there are some people who want to make the sort of dead-end characterization you suggest above, or just swear pointlessly, or utter obscenities, or bully and bluster and posture, in order to preserve their prejudices from examination. That is not philosophy, so you are right.

But the Philosophy of Religion IS philosophy. So is Metaphysics. And Ethics. All three are core areas of philosophy, and all are invariably "religious." If one wants to talk about "religion" philosophically, these are the strands to which to go.

My advice to the rude among the Atheist set is this: if you really have nothing but contempt for "religion" and don't want to talk about it, then give up your taste for petty vilification and move on to a different topic. This is a big board, with lots of places for someone to go and discuss Political Philosophy, or Philosophy of Sport, or general Epistemology, or whatever is soul-satisfyingly secular for you. But it's completely silly to for anyone to get his knickers in a twist if people on a Philosophy of Religion strand (see top of page) are discussing "religion."

What on earth should we expect?

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen," as they say. If one really doesn't like talk about "religion," then why be here? But in point of fact, some in the Atheists LOVE talk about religion, so long as their rhetorical flourishes remain only empty, self-congratulatory, irrational and unopposed. They hate it when it turns philosophical, because that's when they inevitably lose. As an exercise in reinforcement of their prejudices, they love the topic: but let the exchange turn rational, and they hate it and rant that Theists have no right to speak.

Now that too is predictable. For to take Atheism seriously, one would have to view "Philosophy of Religion" as essentially equivalent to "Philosophy of Superstition" -- in other words, there isn't a single non-dismissive or non-reduction insight that their Atheist ideology can propose on that topic.

But if that were allowed to stand, then there would BE no "Philosophy of Religion." So what almost inevitably ends up being the first topic of a Philosophy of Religion strand, the minute someone joins who knows anything at all about "religion," is the irrationality of Atheism! Again, this is entirely to be expected. Why would anyone be surprised?

But what should Atheists care, if they are truly secure in their Atheism? However, the truth is that they're not. They're aware that their Atheism is a giant posture of false-confidence. And personally, they know that they doubt their Atheism all the time. And they come here to have it confirmed by indulging in groupthink and collectively celebrate the bashing anyone "religious". Their dismay comes when they find that their own view has not the rational fibre to do it. And they resort to irrational, non-philosophical tactics such as abuse and folly, to drive their opponents from the field. It's their only win.

And that's not philosophy. Right you are. It's human nature.

I have no cure in hand, but better attentiveness by the moderators. And on this board, for some reason, they seem to think that laissez-faire is a course of unimpeachable virtue.

[sthitapragya]

The fact remains that we are on opposite sides of a section on religion. What we discuss is not philosophy.

It should be...it should not be the kinds of insults, vague posturing and nonsense we see above. It should be to-the-point, focused on ideologies not personalities, and using reasons not empty rhetoric to achieve its goals.

It is philosophy that makes possible the arbitration between views. If we stuck to using the methods of philosophy, we would get places. And that would be great. But there are some people who want to make the sort of dead-end characterization you suggest above, or just swear pointlessly, or utter obscenities, or bully and bluster and posture, in order to preserve their prejudices from examination. That is not philosophy, so you are right.

But the Philosophy of Religion IS philosophy. So is Metaphysics. And Ethics. All three are core areas of philosophy, and all are invariably "religious." If one wants to talk about "religion" philosophically, these are the strands to which to go.

My advice to the rude among the Atheist set is this: if you really have nothing but contempt for "religion" and don't want to talk about it, then give up your taste for petty vilification and move on to a different topic. This is a big board, with lots of places for someone to go and discuss Political Philosophy, or Philosophy of Sport, or general Epistemology, or whatever is soul-satisfyingly secular for you. But it's completely silly to for anyone to get his knickers in a twist if people on a Philosophy of Religion strand (see top of page) are discussing "religion."

What on earth should we expect?

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen," as they say. If one really doesn't like talk about "religion," then why be here? But in point of fact, some in the Atheists LOVE talk about religion, so long as their rhetorical flourishes remain only empty, self-congratulatory, irrational and unopposed. They hate it when it turns philosophical, because that's when they inevitably lose. As an exercise in reinforcement of their prejudices, they love the topic: but let the exchange turn rational, and they hate it and rant that Theists have no right to speak.

Now that too is predictable. For to take Atheism seriously, one would have to view "Philosophy of Religion" as essentially equivalent to "Philosophy of Superstition" -- in other words, there isn't a single non-dismissive or non-reduction insight that their Atheist ideology can propose on that topic.

But if that were allowed to stand, then there would BE no "Philosophy of Religion." So what almost inevitably ends up being the first topic of a Philosophy of Religion strand, the minute someone joins who knows anything at all about "religion," is the irrationality of Atheism! Again, this is entirely to be expected. Why would anyone be surprised?

But what should Atheists care, if they are truly secure in their Atheism? However, the truth is that they're not. They're aware that their Atheism is a giant posture of false-confidence. And personally, they know that they doubt their Atheism all the time. And they come here to have it confirmed by indulging in groupthink and collectively celebrate the bashing anyone "religious". Their dismay comes when they find that their own view has not the rational fibre to do it. And they resort to irrational, non-philosophical tactics such as abuse and folly, to drive their opponents from the field. It's their only win.

And that's not philosophy. Right you are. It's human nature.

I have no cure in hand, but better attentiveness by the moderators. And on this board, for some reason, they seem to think that laissez-faire is a course of unimpeachable virtue.

I would have considered your post worthwhile if you had a set of rules for theists too. But unfortunately. you fell short. If you think only the atheists are rude then you have blinders on and you show your bias.

This is what I mean by human nature. You will only see your side. You will never be able to see the other side. That is why I say you are a bigot. Your inability to see the other side of the story is the problem.

I pointed out to you the fact that you will think you are right and I will think I am right. That is human nature. You still insist that theists are pure as the driven snow and atheists are the ones to blame.

You are and will always remain a bigot, till you open your mind to the possibility that human beings cannot be categorized as a general rule. Within each category there are all kinds of people. Be it atheists, theist, black, white, brown, yellow, hindu, muslim, christian, sikh, buddhist or any other religion. Whether it is, Russian, American, Mexican, Indian, Spanish, British, Guatemalan or wherever one is from, you will find broad minded people, narrow minded people, bigots, or just plain assholes.


It has nothing to do with race, religion or sex. People are people, randomly distributed within each category. That is what makes life interesting.

And because you are a bigot, you can never ever ever be a philosopher. So how on earth can you do philosophy?

[Reflex]

With respect to the OP, it sounds like an extrapolation from the doctrine of divine simplicity, a doctrine with which I concur as far as the basic premise goes.

As for the moronic atheist responses, I see them as a freak sideshow without any serious content and whose authors have all the depth perception of a dehydrated sponge. They come to a philosophy forum without having a clue as to what philosophy is regardless of their claims of being highly educated.

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. The OP is an ontology that includes God as a category of being, which historically not at all uncommon in genuine philosophy.

(Good post, IC)

[Immanuel Can]

I would have considered your post worthwhile if you had a set of rules for theists too.

Essentially, I argued that the rules are the same for all sides: don't be dismayed if we talk about "religion" on a Philosophy of Religion strand, and use reasons. You can hardly disagree with that.

This is what I mean by human nature. You will only see your side. You will never be able to see the other side.

You'll only know that if we both agree to stick to philosophy to reason and evidence, instead of personal slanders and general abuse.

That is why I say you are a bigot. Your inability to see the other side of the story is the problem.

Heeeeere we go! The ad hominems. Didn't take you long.

You are and will always remain a bigot, till you open your mind to the possibility that human beings cannot be categorized as a general rule.

Now, that's fascinating...you're the one who, just a few exchanges ago and on the last strand, decided both my skin colour and nationality based on mere tone!

Have you and I ever talked about my country, history or "race"? No, of course not. So you simply assumed that because I write in a particular way, I could not possibly be Indian.

Wow.

[sthitapragya]

Essentially, I argued that the rules are the same for all sides: don't be dismayed if we talk about "religion" on a Philosophy of Religion strand, and use reasons. You can hardly disagree with that.

Nope. You put all the blame square on the atheists. Here is your entire post for your reference. Show me where you have said anything about theists.

"It should be...it should not be the kinds of insults, vague posturing and nonsense we see above. It should be to-the-point, focused on ideologies not personalities, and using reasons not empty rhetoric to achieve its goals.

It is philosophy that makes possible the arbitration between views. If we stuck to using the methods of philosophy, we would get places. And that would be great. But there are some people who want to make the sort of dead-end characterization you suggest above, or just swear pointlessly, or utter obscenities, or bully and bluster and posture, in order to preserve their prejudices from examination. That is not philosophy, so you are right.

But the Philosophy of Religion IS philosophy. So is Metaphysics. And Ethics. All three are core areas of philosophy, and all are invariably "religious." If one wants to talk about "religion" philosophically, these are the strands to which to go.

My advice to the rude among the Atheist set is this: if you really have nothing but contempt for "religion" and don't want to talk about it, then give up your taste for petty vilification and move on to a different topic. This is a big board, with lots of places for someone to go and discuss Political Philosophy, or Philosophy of Sport, or general Epistemology, or whatever is soul-satisfyingly secular for you. But it's completely silly to for anyone to get his knickers in a twist if people on a Philosophy of Religion strand (see top of page) are discussing "religion."

What on earth should we expect?

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen," as they say. If one really doesn't like talk about "religion," then why be here? But in point of fact, some in the Atheists LOVE talk about religion, so long as their rhetorical flourishes remain only empty, self-congratulatory, irrational and unopposed. They hate it when it turns philosophical, because that's when they inevitably lose. As an exercise in reinforcement of their prejudices, they love the topic: but let the exchange turn rational, and they hate it and rant that Theists have no right to speak.

Now that too is predictable. For to take Atheism seriously, one would have to view "Philosophy of Religion" as essentially equivalent to "Philosophy of Superstition" -- in other words, there isn't a single non-dismissive or non-reduction insight that their Atheist ideology can propose on that topic.

But if that were allowed to stand, then there would BE no "Philosophy of Religion." So what almost inevitably ends up being the first topic of a Philosophy of Religion strand, the minute someone joins who knows anything at all about "religion," is the irrationality of Atheism! Again, this is entirely to be expected. Why would anyone be surprised?

But what should Atheists care, if they are truly secure in their Atheism? However, the truth is that they're not. They're aware that their Atheism is a giant posture of false-confidence. And personally, they know that they doubt their Atheism all the time. And they come here to have it confirmed by indulging in groupthink and collectively celebrate the bashing anyone "religious". Their dismay comes when they find that their own view has not the rational fibre to do it. And they resort to irrational, non-philosophical tactics such as abuse and folly, to drive their opponents from the field. It's their only win.

And that's not philosophy. Right you are. It's human nature.

I have no cure in hand, but better attentiveness by the moderators. And on this board, for some reason, they seem to think that laissez-faire is a course of unimpeachable virtue."

This is what I mean by human nature. You will only see your side. You will never be able to see the other side.

You'll only know that if we both agree to stick to philosophy to reason and evidence, instead of personal slanders and general abuse.

Reason and evidence cannot be brought into a religious discussion as it is about feeling God. The final argument of theists is something like sensus divinitus or some such stuff. It is pointed out to atheists that they cannot feel it so they do not understand. That is not reason and evidence. None of you actually even clarify what kind of a God you believe in. How do we get reason and evidence into such discussions.

Now, that's fascinating...you're the one who, just a few exchanges ago and on the last strand, decided both my skin colour and nationality based on mere tone!

Have you and I ever talked about my country, history or "race"? No, of course not. So you simply assumed that because I write in a particular way, I could not possibly be Indian.

Wow.

[/quote][/quote]

I meant a religious bigot. You are one. Your skin colour and nationality do not matter. And you could not possibly be Indian. An Indian Christian would not be so aggressive or contemptuous of other religions. I know a lot of Indian Christians as I studied in a Convent school. They are all brought up in the Indian culture of respecting God of any religion. I have seen Indian Christians pray at Hindu temples just as any HIndu would pray at a Church. Your language does not suggest you are an Indian. You could be, but definitely not brought up in India. I can guarantee that much.


Oh, and I just read something in your post that I copied and pasted. You asked, "If you don't like to talk about religion, why be here?" Well, because I like talking about religion. I just accept that it is not philosophy. If it were philosophy, I would not be here because I cannot do philosophy.

[Reflex]

"What should Atheists care, if they are truly secure in their Atheism?" Why do they participate in a philosophy of religion forum? After all, "It is one of the chief skills of the philosopher not to occupy himself with questions which do not concern him." (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

"I cannot do philosophy." (sthitapragya) Gee. No kidding?

[Immanuel Can]

Now, that's fascinating...you're the one who, just a few exchanges ago and on the last strand, decided both my skin colour and nationality based on mere tone!

Have you and I ever talked about my country, history or "race"? No, of course not. So you simply assumed that because I write in a particular way, I could not possibly be Indian.

Wow.

I meant a religious bigot. You are one.

Ad hominem. You really need to look that up. Even if it were true, it would be immaterial. You keep thinking that a character insult would change the truth value of what someone said...it wouldn't.

And you could not possibly be Indian. An Indian Christian would not be so aggressive or contemptuous of other religions. I know a lot of Indian Christians as I studied in a Convent school. They are all brought up in the Indian culture of respecting God of any religion. I have seen Indian Christians pray at Hindu temples just as any HIndu would pray at a Church. Your language does not suggest you are an Indian. You could be, but definitely not brought up in India. I can guarantee that much.

I think I'm just going to let you speak for yourself here. I couldn't possibly add anything that would be more damning to your own case than the above.

I cannot do philosophy.

Who am I to disagree with you?

[uwot]

It is philosophy that makes possible the arbitration between views.

No it isn't. Philosophy cannot arbitrate between the view that there is a god, and the view that there is none. All philosophy can do is determine whether an argument developed from a set of premises is valid.

If we stuck to using the methods of philosophy, we would get places. And that would be great.

Wouldn't it? But you need to understand that the premises you ascribe to atheists are not the ones they wish to defend.

But the Philosophy of Religion IS philosophy. So is Metaphysics. And Ethics. All three are core areas of philosophy, and all are invariably "religious."

That's just your Jesus tinted glasses; they are blinding you to the difference between philosophy of religion and religious philosophy.

My advice to the rude among the Atheist set is this...

My advice to you is to learn to read what people write and, if you wish to be taken seriously as a philosopher, respond to that.

[sthitapragya]

I cannot do philosophy.

Who am I to disagree with you?

Well, you can only agree with me because neither can you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here either.

[uwot]

Well, you can only agree with me because neither can you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here either.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow, there are many here who do philosophy very well; some even have the paperwork that says so.

[sthitapragya]

Well, you can only agree with me because neither can you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here either.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow, there are many here who do philosophy very well; some even have the paperwork that says so.

Well, I am going more by the assumption that a good philosopher would not waste his time responding to the petty issues guys like me raise. They would generally ignore me and let it go because they would have better things to do and discuss, wouldn't they? If you see above, you will find that he and I have been in a slanging match since the last three days calling each other names. That is hardly the mark of a good philosopher, is it?

A good philosopher would simply have taken me up on my claim that discussion on religion is not philosophy and set about explaining to me why I was wrong and how discussions or religion could be considered philosophy. All I got was a tirade against atheists.

[uwot]

Well, I am going more by the assumption that a good philosopher would not waste his time responding to the petty issues guys like me raise.

A lot of philosophy is petty, but it's all practise. Don't do yourself down though, I think your approach is much more honest than Immanuel Can's.

They would generally ignore me and let it go because they would have better things to do and discuss, wouldn't they?

Part of the reason I'm here is that I really admire what Rick Lewis is trying to do. I think making philosophy accessible to people who don't have an academic grounding in the subject is a good thing.

If you see above, you will find that he and I have been in a slanging match since the last three days calling each other names. That is hardly the mark of a good philosopher, is it?

Well, Popper and Wittgenstein, for example, were extremely good philosophers, but that didn't stop them bickering.