Get real !

[marjoram_blues]

The description of this sub-forum is ' Is there a God? If so, what is she like?'
Perhaps this explains why so many threads tend to be of the 'theist v atheist' type. It's all so predictable and so very narrow.

What is the 'Philosophy of Religion'? And why is it relevant? Here is one explanation, from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Philosophy of religion addresses embedded social and personal practices. Philosophy of religion is therefore relevant to practical concerns; its subject matter is not all abstract theory. Given the vast percentage of the world population that is either aligned with religion or affected by religion, philosophy of religion has a secure role in addressing people's actual values and commitments. A chief point of reference in much philosophy of religion is the shape and content of living traditions. In this way, philosophy of religion may be informed by the other disciplines that study religious life.
Another reason behind the importance of the field is its breadth. There are few areas of philosophy that are shorn of religious implications. Religious traditions are so comprehensive and all-encompassing in their claims that almost every domain of philosophy may be drawn upon in the philosophical investigation of their coherence, justification, and value.
A third reason is historical. Most philosophers throughout the history of ideas, east and west, have addressed religious topics. One cannot undertake a credible history of philosophy without taking philosophy of religion seriously.

So, not just about the theoretical question of God's existence and nature.
If you are more interested in the relevance of practical concerns, as opposed to the eternal theorising about religion,...try reading this article.
Be warned: It's long and informative:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers.

In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors...

Not understanding a particular religious group and its ideology can lead to 'significant strategic errors'...
So, do you wanna talk about whether or not God exists, or would it be more beneficial to get to grips with the effects and affects of religion, as practised in real life.
Why can't philosophers get real? For starters, reflect reality - minds on the ground. Cut the crap - 'What is she like?'

[The Inglorious One]

Bingo. Virtually no one here is genuinely interested in philosophy of religion.

[Jaded Sage]

This is more of an ethical question, I suppose, but what do you think of this: suppose there is a terroristic threat, and suppose that terroristic threat comes in the guise, authentic or inauthentic, of a religion and people. Suppose the correct thing is to have a population that views that religion and people in such a way that renders them safe. Suppose also that many presumably cannot achieve this view without also viewing that religion and people through prejudiced hatred and intolerance, or—and I believe this is more likely—that producing in them a view that is prejudiced with hatred and intolerance is the most efficient means of producing a view in them that keeps them safe. Is it right to instill such a view, even if it means manipulation? Or should we first attempt some other strategy?

[Hobbes' Choice]

The description of this sub-forum is ' Is there a God? If so, what is she like?'
Perhaps this explains why so many threads tend to be of the 'theist v atheist' type. It's all so predictable and so very narrow.

What is the 'Philosophy of Religion'? And why is it relevant? Here is one explanation, from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Philosophy of religion addresses embedded social and personal practices. Philosophy of religion is therefore relevant to practical concerns; its subject matter is not all abstract theory. Given the vast percentage of the world population that is either aligned with religion or affected by religion, philosophy of religion has a secure role in addressing people's actual values and commitments. A chief point of reference in much philosophy of religion is the shape and content of living traditions. In this way, philosophy of religion may be informed by the other disciplines that study religious life.
Another reason behind the importance of the field is its breadth. There are few areas of philosophy that are shorn of religious implications. Religious traditions are so comprehensive and all-encompassing in their claims that almost every domain of philosophy may be drawn upon in the philosophical investigation of their coherence, justification, and value.
A third reason is historical. Most philosophers throughout the history of ideas, east and west, have addressed religious topics. One cannot undertake a credible history of philosophy without taking philosophy of religion seriously.

So, not just about the theoretical question of God's existence and nature.
If you are more interested in the relevance of practical concerns, as opposed to the eternal theorising about religion,...try reading this article.
Be warned: It's long and informative:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers.

In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors...

Not understanding a particular religious group and its ideology can lead to 'significant strategic errors'...
So, do you wanna talk about whether or not God exists, or would it be more beneficial to get to grips with the effects and affects of religion, as practised in real life.
Why can't philosophers get real? For starters, reflect reality - minds on the ground. Cut the crap - 'What is she like?'

You flounder at the first step.
Obviously she is exactly like whatever the fuck you want her to be. And for ISIS He is exactly what the fuck they want God to be.
So what the hell are you hoping to achieve here?
The existence of god is the only valid question, because it is so blatantly obvious, and all religious belief, activity, endeavour, doctrine, is based on a series of inconsistent viewpoints. Faith is believing a thing you know ain't so.
Your question is meaningless.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Bingo. Virtually no one here is genuinely interested in philosophy of religion.

Your problem is that you approach it from a biased point of view. You will never understand ISIS, Islam, Buddhism, because your view of god, is not the same as their's.
The real question is how on earth the network of lies and consent called religion is manufactured and reproduced with each generation against the force of reason and evidence. What are the consequences of accepting miracles, revelations, and the instructions of priests based on assertions about the existence of a being whose ontology is based wholly on faith and not evidence or reason.

Since you are not willing to pursue these questions, you will never get a handle on the philosophy of religion because your belief prevents you from understanding it objectively.

And then because of your shortsightedness, you react to others' objections as if they are the problem, when all the time it is you.

[marjoram_blues]

The description of this sub-forum is ' Is there a God? If so, what is she like?'
Perhaps this explains why so many threads tend to be of the 'theist v atheist' type. It's all so predictable and so very narrow.

What is the 'Philosophy of Religion'? And why is it relevant? Here is one explanation, from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Philosophy of religion addresses embedded social and personal practices. Philosophy of religion is therefore relevant to practical concerns; its subject matter is not all abstract theory. Given the vast percentage of the world population that is either aligned with religion or affected by religion, philosophy of religion has a secure role in addressing people's actual values and commitments. A chief point of reference in much philosophy of religion is the shape and content of living traditions. In this way, philosophy of religion may be informed by the other disciplines that study religious life.
Another reason behind the importance of the field is its breadth. There are few areas of philosophy that are shorn of religious implications. Religious traditions are so comprehensive and all-encompassing in their claims that almost every domain of philosophy may be drawn upon in the philosophical investigation of their coherence, justification, and value.
A third reason is historical. Most philosophers throughout the history of ideas, east and west, have addressed religious topics. One cannot undertake a credible history of philosophy without taking philosophy of religion seriously.

So, not just about the theoretical question of God's existence and nature.
If you are more interested in the relevance of practical concerns, as opposed to the eternal theorising about religion,...try reading this article.
Be warned: It's long and informative:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers.

In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors...

Not understanding a particular religious group and its ideology can lead to 'significant strategic errors'...
So, do you wanna talk about whether or not God exists, or would it be more beneficial to get to grips with the effects and affects of religion, as practised in real life.
Why can't philosophers get real? For starters, reflect reality - minds on the ground. Cut the crap - 'What is she like?'

You flounder at the first step.
Obviously she is exactly like whatever the fuck you want her to be. And for ISIS He is exactly what the fuck they want God to be.
So what the hell are you hoping to achieve here?
The existence of god is the only valid question, because it is so blatantly obvious, and all religious belief, activity, endeavour, doctrine, is based on a series of inconsistent viewpoints. Faith is believing a thing you know ain't so.
Your question is meaningless.

Tell me, HC, what the hell you are hoping to achieve here? You flounder at the first step.

[marjoram_blues]

Bingo. Virtually no one here is genuinely interested in philosophy of religion.

I may have to forego any prize awarded. There have been some quality threads by exceptionally brilliant thinkers. It would be great if they could be easily found and held up as prime examples.

[marjoram_blues]

This is more of an ethical question, I suppose, but what do you think of this: suppose there is a terroristic threat, and suppose that terroristic threat comes in the guise, authentic or inauthentic, of a religion and people. Suppose the correct thing is to have a population that views that religion and people in such a way that renders them safe. Suppose also that many presumably cannot achieve this view without also viewing that religion and people through prejudiced hatred and intolerance, or—and I believe this is more likely—that producing in them a view that is prejudiced with hatred and intolerance is the most efficient means of producing a view in them that keeps them safe. Is it right to instill such a view, even if it means manipulation? Or should we first attempt some other strategy?

Hi JS
I am sorry but you are going to have run that by me once again. I'm not sure what you are getting at but I'd like to give it a go.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So, not just about the theoretical question of God's existence and nature.
If you are more interested in the relevance of practical concerns, as opposed to the eternal theorising about religion,...try reading this article.
Be warned: It's long and informative:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers.

In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors...

Not understanding a particular religious group and its ideology can lead to 'significant strategic errors'...
So, do you wanna talk about whether or not God exists, or would it be more beneficial to get to grips with the effects and affects of religion, as practised in real life.
Why can't philosophers get real? For starters, reflect reality - minds on the ground. Cut the crap - 'What is she like?'

You flounder at the first step.
Obviously she is exactly like whatever the fuck you want her to be. And for ISIS He is exactly what the fuck they want God to be.
So what the hell are you hoping to achieve here?
The existence of god is the only valid question, because it is so blatantly obvious, and all religious belief, activity, endeavour, doctrine, is based on a series of inconsistent viewpoints. Faith is believing a thing you know ain't so.
Your question is meaningless.

Tell me, HC, what the hell you are hoping to achieve here? You flounder at the first step.[/quote]

"What is she like?" is more than floundering, you have shot yourself in the foot. This has nothing to do with the philosophy of religion, just a silly question. The question is what YOU hope to achieve.

[marjoram_blues]

HC no first aid required on any of my tootsies.

[Hobbes' Choice]

HC no first aid required on any of my tootsies.

That's because you lost your feet long ago.

[marjoram_blues]

HC no first aid required on any of my tootsies.

That's because you lost your feet long ago.

Along with my head and mind. Explains a lot, but not shot.

[Hobbes' Choice]

HC no first aid required on any of my tootsies.

That's because you lost your feet long ago.

Along with my head and mind. Explains a lot, but not shot.

So what is SHE like?

[marjoram_blues]

HC: So what is SHE like?

Ah, mon petit choux. Charles Aznavour sings her so sublimely divinely.

[Hobbes' Choice]

HC: So what is SHE like?

Ah, mon petit choux. Charles Aznavour sings her so sublimely divinely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O040xuq2FR0

E Costello not too bad either.
Does that mean you've given up on God?

Or so you regard Charles Aznavour as divine?