It's come to my attention that we atheists need to make a distinction among the otherwise "generic" theist we talk about here. One of my favorite scientists was a theist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître He was said to have gone specifically to visit the pope who kept trying to give his theory a religious spin and to tell him in essence to "fucking quit it, religion and science are not in competition". So there are what I've called before "rational" theists who are probably not at the heart of cursades, inquisitions, terrorist bombings, antievolution movements and witch burnings. They incorporate scientific findings into their understanding of the universe as much as the rest of us. I think we need to be clear that (at least what I see as the problem with theism) is that the masses, who make up mobs that can be controlled by the powerful few, are so indoctrinated into this mystical way of thinking that they really believe that those of other faiths are heathens or infidels and need to be saved or killed. I think many atheists can see this, but it gets lost sometimes. Discuss?
the bold is a value statement (you'll have to unpack it to get beyond relative issues - since extremism for someone who is greatly unextreme could be understood as normal) the italics does not do the job of unpacking for instance if it was stated (with utter uncertainty) that god wants all living entities to be free from unnecessary suffering, why would that be a wrong/dangerous philosophy? (BTW don't mention ingrown toenails and starving children unless you want to sit down to a discussion on the necessity of suffering by the laws of karma - the actual point is that to have utter uncertainty of what god wants makes it easier to do anything and everything abominable in the name of god)
Yes. I could just eliminate it: Unless it's a philosophy based on the utter certainty of what god wants? No... way... dude. I agree with that, LG. Nicely put.
For one thing, because it could (and has) lead to the conclusion that all suffering which is allowed by God (all suffering which exists) must therefore be necessary, and is not to be alleviated through technological device or the manipulations of a clever but irreverent materialism. I'm not sure if I follow, but if that meant what it says and not the opposite the opposite seems far better established, historically. Abominations are accomplished by the certain, the convinced.
One question.. A god that needs or a god that wants is a god that lacks. The very creation of an infinitely subordinate creature destined to bow at your feet is and will be described as egomania. An entity that would be described as needing and lacking nothing would never have created a group of vastly subordinate beings to bow at it feet. Your god friend being "wants" something. This states that this being lacks something - otherwise it would have no wants. Where therefore arrives the smart philosophy that there exists an entity that lacks nothing and yet creates a simple, and faulty, entity to worship its very existence?
iceaura “ if we have the intelligence to get free from suffering, and god wants us to be free from suffering, and if there are scriptural quotes that clearly establish intelligence as god given why would one be prohibited from using one's intelligence to get free from suffering? (IOW the philosophy of existing int his world as a human punching bag because there is an element of necessary suffering in this world can be brought to focus under further (certain) information about god - if we weren't certain that intelligence is god given, for instance, maybe being a human punching bag would be an option) “ and in hind sight such abominations are (generally) criticized for falling outside of certain standards. for instance if we were not certain that killing a person to steal their wealth is sinful, there would be no means for condemning such a person, even if such a person performs such a deed in the name of god
Why indeed. But so it has been, and quite commonly, and such is one of the dangers of your proposition - you inquired after the dangers, no ? I present you with the difficulties of confronting theists in their certainties. They will have dirt, and disease, and not baths, and not blood transfusions, because their god will have it so. Yet many people in amny times and places lacking all concept of "sin" nevertheless found, and find, condemnation of murder and robbery quite natural.
in regards to both points - there exists a superior body of knowledge that can keep things on track (provided one is certain of it of course) There is literature that documents philosophical corruption within religion. One interesting phrase I came across was "replacing major for minor virtues" (like for instance establishing ritual attendance to services as superior to moral character) IOW for as long as one is certain of major virtues being major (and minor virtues being minor) it's degenerative to accept the default position of uncertainty
I'm assuming you meant the opposite of what you said, there, sort of. If so: It's more observation than participation. And yes, certainty does seem to accompany the exaltation of minor virtues. Symptomatic, even.
whether one replaces a major for a minor virtue, or a minor for a major virtue, the result is the same - you have major virtues that are not really major and you have minor virtues that are not really minor I can't understand this can you maybe say it in a different way?
Unless you were wrong to begin with. In which case you have your minor and major virtues more where they belong, afterwards. The very certain are disproportionately the inadequately alert to possibility - thus the less likely to possess bodies of superior knowledge. It would be by chance, and chances are slim in this field.
sorry I can't understand this can you perhaps explain it in a different way? I also cannot understand this either maybe you could give an example of what you are trying to say
