For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:11 amYou are partly right of course. What do you understand by weaponising of a religion?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:01 amThat is a self-inflicted lobotomy with programming from three thousand years ago still addressing the same population of three thousand years ago; it is not helpful. Belinda, do you believe there is such a thing as religious insanity? That is what I infer, the Koran is an outstanding example of, but they are all degrees of popular insanity. Christianity itself is soaked in the blood of innocence.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:47 am
I think that the belief that God exists and is good is a very useful heuristic device for helping to stop wars and injustice.
Capitalism and the profit motive taken to excess is more likely to be a main cause of crime and bad mental health than is belief in a good God.
You really believe that, don't you?Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 12:04 amAs a matter of fact Jihad is firstly for making oneself a better person...popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 11:13 pm The Koran is a recipe book for creating psychopaths, with very explicit instructions to kill the unbelievers.
In spite of all that Islamists do in the name of Jihad, you still prefer to believe their PR line, that this is about "personal struggle"?Because secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 10:03 amWhy can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?puto wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 9:21 am “You can’t evaluate a religion on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your own religious stance” (Keller 12.) "When a Russian cosmonaut returned from space and reported that he had not found God, CS Lewis responded that this was like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare" (Keller 122.)
For the answers, read the book. It will enlighten your opinions.
Keller, Timothy, (2008,) The Reason for God, Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
You can't, obviously.How else are you supposed to evaluate it?
Then it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:05 pmPeople with differing imaginary friends/Gods have been killing each other since time immemorial. Are you looking for other patterns? If you can explain the slaughter of the battling religions in any other way, I am all ears.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:11 amYou are partly right of course. What do you understand by weaponizing of a religion?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:01 am
That is a self-inflicted lobotomy with programming from three thousand years ago still addressing the same population of three thousand years ago; it is not helpful. Belinda, do you believe there is such a thing as religious insanity? That is what I infer, the Koran is an outstanding example of, but they are all degrees of popular insanity. Christianity itself is soaked in the blood of innocence.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:37 amYou explain the weaponising of religions as I asked. I could do no better.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:05 pmPeople with differing imaginary friends/Gods have been killing each other since time immemorial. Are you looking for other patterns? If you can explain the slaughter of the battling religions in any other way, I am all ears.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 1:11 am
You are partly right of course. What do you understand by weaponizing of a religion?
Religions don't weaponise themselves. People weaponise religions. People also use religions in the interests of peace. I trust you don't need anyone to give you examples of the use of religion in the interest of peace.
Yes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives. Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:07 amThen it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.
Ethical criteria are not imposed upon men by any supernatural authority. Ethical criteria are those criteria that have been found by men to work for peace and/or prosperity.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:05 amBecause secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 10:03 amWhy can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?puto wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 9:21 am “You can’t evaluate a religion on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your own religious stance” (Keller 12.) "When a Russian cosmonaut returned from space and reported that he had not found God, CS Lewis responded that this was like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare" (Keller 122.)
For the answers, read the book. It will enlighten your opinions.
Keller, Timothy, (2008,) The Reason for God, Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.You can't, obviously.How else are you supposed to evaluate it?
So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.
But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.
You have repeated this silly point over and over. The notion that subjective opinions are nothing but prejudices is ridiculous. I decide what movies to see by reading critiques; I decide what restaurants to patronize by reading reviews; I vote for candidates based (in part) on reading editorials and op.eds. What's wrong with that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:05 amBecause secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 10:03 amWhy can't you evaluate a religion on the basis of your ethical criteria?puto wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 9:21 am “You can’t evaluate a religion on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your own religious stance” (Keller 12.) "When a Russian cosmonaut returned from space and reported that he had not found God, CS Lewis responded that this was like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare" (Keller 122.)
For the answers, read the book. It will enlighten your opinions.
Keller, Timothy, (2008,) The Reason for God, Belief In An Age of Skepticism, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.You can't, obviously.How else are you supposed to evaluate it?
So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.
But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.
Narrative just means "story." Nothing more.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 11:44 amYes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:07 amThen it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.
What's your evidence for "nobody can possibly know..."?Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.
That just means that they're delusions that serve somebody's power-grabbing interest. Haven't you read Nietzsche?Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.
Like sacrificing virgins to the Aztec gods, you mean? Yes, that does bring people together, alright. And one or two, it takes apart.Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.
Then it's a delusion.I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture.
No, it's what is called a "synonym." I can see you're irritated, but I think that's because you sense we're on the verge of a truthful realization here. But let me explain.Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:46 pmThe notion that subjective opinions are nothing but prejudices is ridiculous.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:05 amBecause secularism does not have any ethical criteria. Its worldview doesn't have any explanation for how any can exist.You can't, obviously.How else are you supposed to evaluate it?
So all a secularist can do is pretend his preferences are actual, objective moral criteria, and use them, the imaginary criteria...even though his own worldview does not permit any, and nobody has any reason to accept his.
But he shouldn't be surprised if he is ignored. After all, his own worldview tells him no moral criteria are anything but somebody's prejudices.
Morality is not like taste in movies -- mine, yours, or the critics'. If it is not grounded in some reality, then it has no authority, no power, no obligatory force...it can, and should be, simply disregarded.I decide what movies to see by reading critiques; I decide what restaurants to patronize by reading reviews; I vote for candidates based (in part) on reading editorials and op.eds. What's wrong with that?
Yes. So what "evidence" or "reason" can you produce for even one moral precept? Just one. Any one. You can pick it. But show why anybody at all is obligated to agree with it.A "prejudice" is a preconceived opinion not based on evidence or reason.
No. I'm suggesting he's dealing with mere matters of taste, not matters of morality at all. Taste can neither be right nor wrong...but morality always requires both.Are you suggesting that a literary critic who prefers Jane Austen to Georgette Heyer is merely "prejudiced"?
No, I don't think he did. I think he just wanted to do it, and found it convenient to invent a pseudo-religious rationale to do it. But you won't find he had any basis in Scripture. He was just making stuff up.Torquemada thought Christianity not only justified but demanded the torture and burning of heretics.
What's the "reason" and "evidence" you use to inform yourself that "kindness" and "charity" are good, and Torquemada was bad?The problem with it was that it ignored basic moral principles of kindness and charity.
You're guessing. Neither you nor I knows his motive. If his faith was really focused on objective realities, he surely should have compared his own actions to Scripture and discovered he was not "loving his enemies" or "praying for them" by torturing them.The certainty with which Torquemada approached his faith -- feeling his beliefs were "objective -- justified his actions.
I agree. Doubt is very good, so long as it does not merely decay into brainless cynicism, but rather provokes proper questioning.Doubt -- I'd suggest --is the beginning of wisdom.
But again, why do you believe they should agree? And if they don't, what makes one of them bad?"And now I give you these three, hope, faith, and love. But the greatest of these is love." Both secular and Christian moral philosophers can (subjectively) agree.
Yes, narratives are stories.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:53 pmNarrative just means "story." Nothing more.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 11:44 amYes , a matter of cultures. Except religious myths are not delusions but narratives.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:07 am
Then it's all just a matter of culture. It's temporary, human-generated and totally rejectable without any actual wrongness being entailed. In other words, it's one society's delusion. That's all.What's your evidence for "nobody can possibly know..."?Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.That just means that they're delusions that serve somebody's power-grabbing interest. Haven't you read Nietzsche?Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.Like sacrificing virgins to the Aztec gods, you mean? Yes, that does bring people together, alright. And one or two, it takes apart.Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.Then it's a delusion.I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture.
You can mince words, but you can't change the reality.
Again, what is your evidence that convinces you that this is the case? How did you arrive at this settled confidence about what everybody can know?Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 8:35 pmYes, narratives are stories. Nobody can possibly know which stories are the more true,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:53 pmNarrative just means "story." Nothing more.What's your evidence for "nobody can possibly know..."?Nobody can possibly know which narrative is the truer.That just means that they're delusions that serve somebody's power-grabbing interest. Haven't you read Nietzsche?Religious codes of conduct are not delusions but are different ways men maintain social control.Like sacrificing virgins to the Aztec gods, you mean? Yes, that does bring people together, alright. And one or two, it takes apart.Religious rituals are not delusions but like other rituals are the main means of bringing individuals together in a society.Then it's a delusion.I believe that religion is an aspect of human culture.
You can mince words, but you can't change the reality.
You'll have to ask somebody who cares to defend them. I don't.What do you think religious rituals are for?
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 11:32 amThe order of the questions and answers seems a bit chaoticpopeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 12:37 amYou explain the weaponising of religions as I asked. I could do no better.
Religions don't weaponise themselves. People weaponise religions. People also use religions in the interests of peace. I trust you don't need anyone to give you examples of the use of religion in the interest of peace.
