For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
What’s being said is that God is not a belief that requires a proof.
Like Karl Marx said, you mean?
Of course not. We need religion, just like the Spanish inquisitionists said!
Is that what they said?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:28 pmOf course not. We need religion, just like the Spanish inquisitionists said!
You're right. The Spanish inquisitionists were clearly atheists trying to get people to convert to atheism. My bad.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:40 pmIs that what they said?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:28 pmOf course not. We need religion, just like the Spanish inquisitionists said!
I can quote where Marx said it. Can you quote where the Inquistors said, "We need religion"?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:49 pmYou're right. The Spanish inquisitionists were clearly atheists trying to get people to convert to atheism. My bad.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:40 pmIs that what they said?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:28 pm
Of course not. We need religion, just like the Spanish inquisitionists said!
I can quote where Marx said it. Can you quote where the Inquistors said, "We need religion"?
You've become desperate. All you've got is pretending to misunderstand.
I'm not advocating for Marxism and I'm pretty sure Atto wasn't either. Are you advocating for the Spanish Inquisition, or was it a strawman I was facetiously positing?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:04 pmGary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:49 pmYou're right. The Spanish inquisitionists were clearly atheists trying to get people to convert to atheism. My bad.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 7:40 pm
Is that what they said?
I can quote where Marx said it. Can you quote where the Inquistors said, "We need religion"?
No, the Inquisitionists were religous, for sure. And what they did was bad, for sure. How "Catholic" what they did was, you'll have to debate with the Catholics. I would say they were much more political activists than religious ones, but I'll let the Catholics make that case, if they can...their authorities harassed and killed my ancestors a the massacred of St. Bartholomew, so I'm loath to defend that.
But what was done by Marx and his followers? 140 million dead, countless dispossessed, countless tortured, utter economic collapses that further destroyed more...in other words, the damage done by the avowed Atheists turns out to be orders of magnitude greater than any damage done by any religionists, and indeed, by all combined...even by Islam, which is by far the worst religion for violence, murder and oppression, since it equals all others combined.
So here we're advocating what is, verifiably and statistically, the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude (i.e. Atheism, and particularly Socialism), in order to get rid of murder and injustice?
Can you see any problem with this idea?
Well, what are you advocating for? Nazism? Nihilism? Solipsism? Hedonism? If you're going to deprive people of their most cherished beliefs, then at least you owe them to say something about what new orientation points you believe they should be using now in order to make decisions, set priorities and shape their lives.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:13 pm I'm not advocating for Marxism and I'm pretty sure Atto wasn't either.
I'm advocating for agnosticism. Do you have a problem with agnosticism?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:19 pmWell, what are you advocating for? Nazism? Nihilism? Solipsism? Hedonism? If you're going to deprive people of their most cherished beliefs, then at least you owe them to say something about what new orientation points you believe they should be using now in order to make decisions, set priorities and shape their lives.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:13 pm I'm not advocating for Marxism and I'm pretty sure Atto wasn't either.
What have you got?
And in addition, what is it that bothers you so much about people believing things? It doesn't bother me. Even if I disagree with much of what they believe, they surely have a right to believe it. Everybody's got a right to be wrong.
But what is it about Atheists, that they find it so intollerable for anybody to be anything but an Atheist?
Well, it denies everybody any orientation points.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:21 pm I'm advocating for agnosticism. Do you have a problem with agnosticism?
How does agnosticism deny people "any future orientation points"? It seems to me that someone can simply be oriented with the fact that they don't know the answers to everything, especially metaphysical things which by their nature are beyond this world. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:38 pmWell, it denies everybody any orientation points.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:21 pm I'm advocating for agnosticism. Do you have a problem with agnosticism?
Agnosticism is just a confession of ignorance, really...which may be a honest thing for a person who's genuinely ignorant of any metaphysical or moral orientation points to declare himself, but is utterly uninformative to the very important project we cannot avoid, that of building a life. It can't inform a society, or help us set priorities, or even to know what's ultimately worth searching and sacrificing to find. Would it be a kindness to people or a service to society, to rip from them not only their current beliefs, but to permanently deny them any future orientation points for their lives?
Does that strike you as some kind of benefit, beneficence, or public service?
But if you let them believe things again, what project, with what orientation points, should they accept? And why should they accept it, given your agnosticism, your confession of complete unknowing?
It doesn't have to...if you're prepared to limit it properly...say, by saying, "Hey, I've got no clues, but I don't know about anybody else." That's just humble and honest. The problem comes up, though, when the agnostic says, "Hey, I have no idea about God -- and you all owe the rest of us never to have any answers either." At that point, it's ceased to be humble and honest, and become tyrannical, dishonest, hubistic ignorance.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 9:00 pm How does agnosticism deny people "any future orientation points"?
Let's see if that's true.It seems to me that someone can simply be oriented with the fact that they don't know the answers to everything, especially metaphysical things which by their nature are beyond this world.