Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1207526]
    Originally posted by thormas View Post

    I am now bored with one who cannot support their own case.
    You are getting a bit strange here, what is going on with you all of a sudden?
    Last edited by thormas; 11-20-2020, 01:10 PM.

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=thormas;n1207540]
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      You are getting a bit strange here, what is going on with you all of a sudden?
      Do not shift the responsibility. The topic of the discussion was your attitude toward atheist, and you playing Dodge Ball.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1207584]
        Originally posted by thormas View Post

        Do not shift the responsibility. The topic of the discussion was your attitude toward atheist, and you playing Dodge Ball.
        I actually have no idea what you are talking about. You have been the one to bring this up and it makes no sense and seems your issue with theism.

        I as stated have no attitude with atheists, I do have questions for atheism. I also disagree with it as I have made obvious as they disagree with my position. So what? It's a discussion.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by thormas View Post

          Actually I have said that man's intelligence and his self-consciousness (and all that results from those two) is what makes him unique. I think both make him different in not just degree but that degree is sufficient to make him different in kind.
          We are no more “unique" than Neanderthal man and Denisovan man, with whom we Homo sapiens cohabitated and interbred for thousands of years. They are now extinct but they were just as intelligent and self-aware as we are.

          The case is made. Of course we read and study history but those individuals (and the vast, vast majority of those in even more recent times and ours) of those ages are not even remembered as individuals and as individuals had no impact. Plus who reads about them but a small number (compared to the present numbers of humans in the world) who soon also will not exist or be remembered.
          There is no particular significance in being remembered as individuals. We are a social species and our societies comprise individuals such as us. It is the impact of these social groups that are significant, not the individuals within them – other than the few great historical figures.

          Again I ask, what is the purpose of man for the atheist? How we function is one thing, what it means is another and in the end.......it means nothing (in this stance).
          The purpose of all creatures (atheist and theist) is to live as we have evolved to live, fulfilling our role as social creatures, maintaining social groups and forming cooperative societies. In this we find satisfaction and purpose just as we have evolved so to do.
          .
          That is just it: I can find, I do profess meaning in the extraordinarily diverse world of culture, research and family love because I believe there is “meaning” - that man has meaning as man - in the “limitlessness of time and space in the universe” Actually it is this that enables 'most of us' to find 'satisfying meaning' in even the mundane.
          Yes, finding “satisfying meaning' in even the mundane” IS exactly it - as I said above. But you seem to be suggesting that this is not sufficient – that one also needs to introduce the notion of a god and life eternal to attain true meaning in life. This is what I meant when I referred to religion as escapist from reality. But there is no verifiable evidence to support such beliefs. These concepts arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age..


          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            We are no more “unique" than Neanderthal man and Denisovan man, with whom we Homo sapiens cohabitated and interbred for thousands of years. They are now extinct but they were just as intelligent and self-aware as we are.



            There is no particular significance in being remembered as individuals. We are a social species and our societies comprise individuals such as us. It is the impact of these social groups that are significant, not the individuals within them – other than the few great historical figures.



            The purpose of all creatures (atheist and theist) is to live as we have evolved to live, fulfilling our role as social creatures, maintaining social groups and forming cooperative societies. In this we find satisfaction and purpose just as we have evolved so to do.
            .


            Yes, finding “satisfying meaning' in even the mundane” IS exactly it - as I said above. But you seem to be suggesting that this is not sufficient – that one also needs to introduce the notion of a god and life eternal to attain true meaning in life. This is what I meant when I referred to religion as escapist from reality. But there is no verifiable evidence to support such beliefs. These concepts arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age..

            I have no issue with the recognition that we - as are other creatures - social beings. And I agree that many of us will not be remembered as individuals. I'm not sure though if that is of no particular significance. Or, perhaps the better way to say it is that I hold that the individual is important in him/herself. I hold that man and woman are, for lack of a better way to phrase it, children of and 'unique' in Being. Thus I hold that man/woman are of utmost significance. I cannot prove this believe and no one can prove that it is not the case.

            I accept evolution but I simply don't think living the life that we have evolved to is the the be all and end all - or the purpose of humanity. Actually, such an idea results in man being the same as a berry on a tree or a creature in the woods. Plus it seems more than a tad mundane:+} Plus I come back to the reality of, "so what?" So we "fulfill our role as social creatures, maintaining social groups and forming cooperative societies" and in the end, when we go the way of the neanderthal, it all meant nothing. In the vastness, the endlessness of the universe or universes, it meant nothing: whatever meaning we say we have given to our lives in a short 70 or so years, never really mattered or made even the smallest difference. Sometimes modern life has been described as a rat race: rats in a maze, running around endlessly, but going nowhere. What you describe sounds like the same thing on a global scale. Some of us might have some temporary fun but the poor saps in countries stricken by poverty, famine and ruled by those who place no value on life and make the lives of others horrific - is this what we evolved to be?

            Our understanding of the purpose of finding meaning in the mundane is radically different.

            So, in the end my friend, although I respect your right to believe or not belief as you will - I disagree with this stance or position or belief of non-belief through and through.
            Last edited by thormas; 11-21-2020, 02:19 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by thormas View Post

              I have no issue with the recognition that we - as are other creatures - social beings. And I agree that many of us will not be remembered as individuals. I'm not sure though if that is of no particular significance. Or, perhaps the better way to say it is that I hold that the individual is important in him/herself. I hold that man and woman are, for lack of a better way to phrase it, children of and 'unique' in Being. Thus I hold that man/woman are of utmost significance. I cannot prove this believe and no one can prove that it is not the case.
              There is NO good reason to think “that man and woman are children of and 'unique' in Being”. We are an evolved social species no different in kind than the other higher primates and archaic humans.

              I accept evolution but I simply don't think living the life that we have evolved to is the the be all and end all - or the purpose of humanity. Actually, such an idea results in man being the same as a berry on a tree or a creature in the woods.
              Yes, exactly. Only cleverer. Why would you assume otherwise?

              Plus it seems more than a tad mundane:+} Plus I come back to the reality of, "so what?"
              WANTING it to be more than it actually is, is the very embodiment of wishful thinking – as previously discussed.

              So we "fulfill our role as social creatures, maintaining social groups and forming cooperative societies" and in the end, when we go the way of the neanderthal, it all meant nothing.
              We may well have gone the way of the Neanderthal if they, rather than us Homo sapiens, had won the ongoing relentless territorial disputes between the two human species that lasted for millennia. We wiped them out. It may just as easily have gone the other way.

              In the vastness, the endlessness of the universe or universes, it meant nothing: whatever meaning we say we have given to our lives in a short 70 or so years, never really mattered or made even the smallest difference.
              Of course, it makes no difference to the “vastness, the endlessness of the universe or universes” for us OR our Neanderthal predecessors. It certainly didn’t for them. They ALSO had rudimentary religious beliefs of being “special” as evidenced by signs of religious ceremonials having accompanied their burials.

              Sometimes modern life has been described as a rat race: rats in a maze, running around endlessly, but going nowhere. What you describe sounds like the same thing on a global scale. Some of us might have some temporary fun but the poor saps in countries stricken by poverty, famine and ruled by those who place no value on life and make the lives of others horrific - is this what we evolved to be?
              It makes an enormous difference how we live our lives and how we contribute to our society, remedy our social ills and those of the wider world. That’s “what we have evolved to be" - communal animals.

              Our understanding of the purpose of finding meaning in the mundane is radically different.

              So, in the end my friend, although I respect your right to believe or not belief as you will - I disagree with this stance or position or belief of non-belief through and through.
              You haven’t actually said how your beliefs provide meaning to the vast impersonal universe in which we find ourselves.


              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                There is NO good reason to think “that man and woman are children of and 'unique' in Being”. We are an evolved social species no different in kind than the other higher primates and archaic humans.

                Yes, exactly. Only cleverer. Why would you assume otherwise?

                WANTING it to be more than it actually is, is the very embodiment of wishful thinking – as previously discussed.

                We may well have gone the way of the Neanderthal if they, rather than us Homo sapiens, had won the ongoing relentless territorial disputes between the two human species that lasted for millennia. We wiped them out. It may just as easily have gone the other way.

                Of course, it makes no difference to the “vastness, the endlessness of the universe or universes” for us OR our Neanderthal predecessors. It certainly didn’t for them. They ALSO had rudimentary religious beliefs of being “special” as evidenced by signs of religious ceremonials having accompanied their burials.

                It makes an enormous difference how we live our lives and how we contribute to our society, remedy our social ills and those of the wider world. That’s “what we have evolved to be" - communal animals.

                You haven’t actually said how your beliefs provide meaning to the vast impersonal universe in which we find ourselves.
                I have no issue with your disagreement, as I said that is a belief statement without evidence for or against. Just as I have no issue agreeing with some of your statements on man as an evolved species.

                Why do I assume the man is more than a berry? Really?

                It is not that I want it to be more, it is that I believe it is more and, therefore, assume it is...............as previously discussed.

                No, what I meant is that in your position, we will go the way of the Neanderthal - it goes nowhere, it has no impact on the universe, it is all for naught, even the little meanings we give it now are actually wishful thinking.

                And you agree: it makes no difference. Thus you can't say it makes an enormous difference when you have already said it makes no difference.

                Enough for now but I have enjoyed the back and forth.



                Comment


                • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                  I have no issue with your disagreement, as I said that is a belief statement without evidence for or against. Just as I have no issue agreeing with some of your statements on man as an evolved species.
                  Your “belief statement”, namely that Homo sapiens provide meaning to the vast impersonal universe in which we find ourselves, is utterly unsupported. There is no evidence “for” such an assertion.

                  Why do I assume the man is more than a berry? Really?
                  That’s not the argument.

                  It is not that I want it to be more, it is that I believe it is more and, therefore, assume it is...............as previously discussed.
                  There is NO reason to believe that things are true because they seem to be true or you want them to be true. This is magical thinking.

                  No, what I meant is that in your position, we will go the way of the Neanderthal - it goes nowhere, it has no impact on the universe, it is all for naught, even the little meanings we give it now are actually wishful thinking.
                  Of course, it has no impact upon the universe(s) per se, how could it – just our localized comer of it.

                  And you agree: it makes no difference. Thus you can't say it makes an enormous difference when you have already said it makes no difference.
                  How we live our lives and how we contribute to our society DOES make an enormous difference to the society of which we are a part, if not to the vast, impersonal universe(s),.



                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                    Your “belief statement”, namely that Homo sapiens provide meaning to the vast impersonal universe in which we find ourselves, is utterly unsupported. There is no evidence “for” such an assertion.

                    That’s not the argument.

                    There is NO reason to believe that things are true because they seem to be true or you want them to be true. This is magical thinking.

                    Of course, it has no impact upon the universe(s) per se, how could it – just our localized comer of it.

                    How we live our lives and how we contribute to our society DOES make an enormous difference to the society of which we are a part, if not to the vast, impersonal universe(s),.
                    You tread the ground we have been over. There is no 'evidence' for belief. I have to double check but I'm not sure I said they provide meaning in or to the universe but that they are meaningful in themselves.
                    Yeah but the berry thing was fun to say:+}
                    Exactly, there is no reason, it is...........belief. Although one can make the argument that such belief is not irrational (but not for now as it is not the topic). I have no problem asserting that 'proofs' for or against God are impossible.
                    It is interesting in that David Bentley Hart in his book 'God' makes the amazingly reasoned argument that atheist thinking ultimately results in magical thinking.
                    Exactly no impact on the greater universe and even any minuscule impact on our corner is passing and ultimately for naught. So ultimately it matters not that man ever was.

                    Again, this is all ground that we have gone over and it is going nowhere - like your understanding of man in the vastness of spacetime:+}



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                      You tread the ground we have been over. There is no 'evidence' for belief. I have to double check but I'm not sure I said they provide meaning in or to the universe but that they are meaningful in themselves.
                      Unevidenced beliefs may well be “meaningful in themselves” to you but there’s no substantive reason for anyone else to accept them.

                      Exactly, there is no reason, it is...........belief. Although one can make the argument that such belief is not irrational (but not for now as it is not the topic). I have no problem asserting that 'proofs' for or against God are impossible.
                      Except that the possibility of gods existing, like that of other mythical entities, is improbable.

                      It is interesting in that David Bentley Hart in his book 'God' makes the amazingly reasoned argument that atheist thinking ultimately results in magical thinking.
                      Conversely, in ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion.

                      Exactly no impact on the greater universe and even any minuscule impact on our corner is passing and ultimately for naught. So ultimately it matters not that man ever was.
                      Why SHOULD it :matter "that man ever was"? Matter to whom? It is YOU, not me, claiming that your beliefs impact the vastness of the greater universe. My argument is that they do not and nor should they be expected to. But this is not to say that how we live our lives and how we contribute to our society does not make an enormous difference to the society of which we are a part. It does.

                      Again, this is all ground that we have gone over and it is going nowhere - like your understanding of man in the vastness of spacetime:+}
                      You have yet to address why you would expect Homo sapiens to impact the greater universe. We have evolved via natural selection like many other human species before us, to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals. This is a trait we share with other intelligent animals to a limited extent in simpler forms. There is NO good reason to imagine that we have evolved to impact the greater cosmos in any way whatsoever.



                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                        Unevidenced beliefs may well be “meaningful in themselves” to you but there’s no substantive reason for anyone else to accept them.

                        FONT=Calibri]Except that the possibility of gods existing, like that of other mythical entities, is improbable. [/FONT]

                        Conversely, in ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion.

                        Why SHOULD it :matter "that man ever was"? Matter to whom? It is YOU, not me, claiming that your beliefs impact the vastness of the greater universe. My argument is that they do not and nor should they be expected to. But this is not to say that how we live our lives and how we contribute to our society does not make an enormous difference to the society of which we are a part. It does.

                        You have yet to address why you would expect Homo sapiens to impact the greater universe. We have evolved via natural selection like many other human species before us, to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals. This is a trait we share with other intelligent animals to a limited extent in simpler forms. There is NO good reason to imagine that we have evolved to impact the greater cosmos in any way whatsoever.
                        I said there was no evidence, I never said that faith cannot be 'reasonable' or that one cannot provide a rational presentation of such a belief. Plus, it should be evident that religious belief is as or even more reasonable than atheism given the numbers who believe the former over the latter.

                        I and most believers don't believe in gods (although you do like to bring them up:+} Actually, I begin with the 'name' of God (and the insight of the writer) in the OT...."I AM" and the connection to the concept of Being in philosophers/theologian/scientists like Hick, Macquarie (who brings in Heidegger and the mathematician Whitehead), Teilhard and many others.

                        I've read Dawkins and a number of the 'famous' atheist authors and I would have loved to have seen a debate between one of them and Hart. You do note though that even Dawkins said 'almost certainly" :+}
                        As for a personal God - not sure exactly what he means: it is probably the image of a Santa like character in his heavens miraculously intervening in the natural world of man as opposed to "I AM' - Whitehead's "Letting Be" of primordial Being by which all is (actually also a philosophical concept).

                        If man doesn't matter then it also doesn't matter than man ever existed; it doesn't matter what he did or did not do in the course of his life or humanity in the whole in its tenure. Thus by original point: such an acceptance points to the utter meaninglessness of humanity and all human effort. This is the absurdity of any and all human effort; this is the folly of Sisyphus.

                        Again, I am under no delusion that my little acts or the acts of all humanity will impact the vastness of time and space; my stance is that man is 'important' in and to Being Itself, i.e. God.




                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                          I said there was no evidence, I never said that faith cannot be 'reasonable' or that one cannot provide a rational presentation of such a belief.
                          “Faith” that is unsupported by any objective evidence is by its very nature “not reasonable”.

                          Plus, it should be evident that religious belief is as or even more reasonable than atheism given the numbers who believe the former over the latter.
                          Not necessarily. Religion arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age.

                          I and most believers don't believe in gods (although you do like to bring them up:+} Actually, I begin with the 'name' of God (and the insight of the writer) in the OT...."I AM" and the connection to the concept of Being in philosophers/theologian/scientists like Hick, Macquarie (who brings in Heidegger and the mathematician Whitehead), Teilhard and many others.
                          “God” or gods are variations of the same unevidenced supernatural entities.

                          I've read Dawkins and a number of the 'famous' atheist authors and I would have loved to have seen a debate between one of them and Hart. You do note though that even Dawkins said 'almost certainly" :+}
                          Scientists never claim “certainty" or proofs. Hence even the most certain facts such as Evolution, which is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, is still referred to as a ‘theory’ despite being one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science.

                          As for a personal God - not sure exactly what he means: it is probably the image of a Santa like character in his heavens miraculously intervening in the natural world of man as opposed to "I AM' - Whitehead's "Letting Be" of primordial Being by which all is (actually also a philosophical concept).
                          A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person.

                          If man doesn't matter then it also doesn't matter than man ever existed; it doesn't matter what he did or did not do in the course of his life or humanity in the whole in its tenure.
                          “If man doesn't matter” to WHOM or WHAT? Man matters very much to his fellow man and the society to which he belongs.

                          Thus by original point: such an acceptance points to the utter meaninglessness of humanity and all human effort. This is the absurdity of any and all human effort; this is the folly of Sisyphus.
                          Ultimately the Sisyphus myth points to the folly of pride and individualism. This as opposed to the communal living to which we inherit by virtue of being an evolved social species.

                          Again, I am under no delusion that my little acts or the acts of all humanity will impact the vastness of time and space; my stance is that man is 'important' in and to Being Itself, i.e. God.
                          What is the basis of this “stance” of yours that man is “'important' in and to Being Itself, i.e. God”? What does this mean exactly?





                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                            “Faith” that is unsupported by any objective evidence is by its very nature “not reasonable”.
                            Not necessarily. Religion arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age.
                            “God” or gods are variations of the same unevidenced supernatural entities.
                            Scientists never claim “certainty" or proofs. Hence even the most certain facts such as Evolution, which is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, is still referred to as a ‘theory’ despite being one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science.
                            A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person.
                            “If man doesn't matter” to WHOM or WHAT? Man matters very much to his fellow man and the society to which he belongs.
                            Ultimately the Sisyphus myth points to the folly of pride and individualism. This as opposed to the communal living to which we inherit by virtue of being an evolved social species.
                            What is the basis of this “stance” of yours that man is “'important' in and to Being Itself, i.e. God”? What does this mean exactly?
                            Seems like you have never read nor studied theology, the more philosophical part of religion. It is eminently rational and reasonable.
                            You do like to refer to the pre-scientific beginnings of religion but neglect to acknowledge that it continues today, to the 21st C - the most scientific century thus far.
                            Actually, the vast majority of believers and all theologians would disagree: what I, what the theologian, means by God is not a play on the gods (see above). Your misunderstanding is revealed in the use of the word entities.
                            Science can never declare certainty - and the point is that neither could Dawkins regarding God. But even his terminology misses out: God as supernatural Creator? Does he mean the God in Genesis, taken literally? Who does that? This is not what 'we' mean by the term God.
                            Even your language betrays a old time religion and concept of a straw man God to knock down. Plus your assumption seems to be that the human language about God results in or posits God as person like us - that is simply not the case.
                            Man doesn't matter at all in any significant way.......any more than a rock or a piece of dust in spite of you trying to assert that he does to his fellows and his society. Such 'meaning' is a delusion given the atheist stance. History has shown that most men don't really matter very much or at all to either their fellow men or their society. Here you reverse your comments on religion and concentrate only on the present, 21st C seemingly ignoring the use and abuse, the lack of really mattering of men and women throughout history by their fellows and society.
                            Sisyphus points to the folly of all human effort -individual or societal.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                              Seems like you have never read nor studied theology, the more philosophical part of religion. It is eminently rational and reasonable.
                              There's nothing "eminently rational and reasonable" about 'make-believe. Philosophical religious arguments are argument from ignorance as evidenced in the 13th century by Aquinas and his so-called five proofs of the existence of God.

                              You do like to refer to the pre-scientific beginnings of religion but neglect to acknowledge that it continues today, to the 21st C - the most scientific century thus far.
                              Yes, religion continues today thanks to its inculcation of the population by predominantly religious communities such as in the USA. But much less so in the more secular countries like my country of Australia, where religion does not influence public discourse and deconsecrated churches on prime land are being sold in large numbers.

                              Actually, the vast majority of believers and all theologians would disagree: what I, what the theologian, means by God is not a play on the gods (see above). Your misunderstanding is revealed in the use of the word entities.
                              No doubt “the vast majority of believers and all theologians would disagree” with arguments against the notion of supernatural beings. But this is not an argument - this is why they are "believers". .

                              Science can never declare certainty - and the point is that neither could Dawkins regarding God. But even his terminology misses out: God as supernatural Creator?
                              Science can empirically test and obtain objective facts sufficient to transform the world via technology and put a man on the moon. It never declares “proof” because a scientific theory, no matter how successful, can hypothetically be tweaked. Although, the laws and constants of nature as determined by science have held firm to date.

                              Conversely, supernatural arguments can never achieve this. They are speculative at best. There is no reason to believe in the supernatural, since nothing we factually know of is explained by the supernatural.

                              Does he mean the God in Genesis, taken literally? Who does that? This is not what 'we' mean by the term God.
                              So, what do YOU mean “by the term God”? You have yet to explain what you meant when you said in your previous post: that man is “'important' in and to Being Itself, i.e. God”? Why is he?

                              Even your language betrays a old time religion and concept of a straw man God to knock down. Plus your assumption seems to be that the human language about God results in or posits God as person like us - that is simply not the case.
                              But God IS like us, isn’t he with the same passions and desire for applause. Not surprising, given that he is made in Man’s image.

                              Man doesn't matter at all in any significant way.......any more than a rock or a piece of dust in spite of you trying to assert that he does to his fellows and his society. Such 'meaning' is a delusion given the atheist stance. History has shown that most men don't really matter very much or at all to either their fellow men or their society.
                              Your bald assertion is wrong. Man, demonstrably matters very much to his fellow man and the society to which he belongs. We love our families and participate in the communities to which we belong and even fight wars to protect these things.

                              Here you reverse your comments on religion and concentrate only on the present, 21st C seemingly ignoring the use and abuse, the lack of really mattering of men and women throughout history by their fellows and society.
                              Things were better in the highly religious medieval societies you reckon?

                              Sisyphus points to the folly of all human effort -individual or societal.
                              Sisyphus received punishment from the gods for being greedy and deceitful – neither qualities being considered acceptable by any community. And if, as you say, the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animal is not true, what is the alternative? Personal salvation by God?

                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Seems you have reached the end of your rope. Are Aquinas proofs all you have to try to dismiss philosophy and theology?
                                You miss the point: I actually don't know of any serious Christian thinker who talks of supernatural beings or deities. Actually I think many of us, being secularists (also), would be in agreement with you in a good number of ways. However, you always fall back on an old time view of what many 'religious' people believe and it is this that you argue against. Some things - like deities and supernatural beings - are not even part of the vocabulary.

                                So we agree on science, good. However, Dawkins still cannot fully commit. And, of course, science cannot answer the 'Why?"

                                So........God. To get into it would take some time (so not now) but I go back to earlier statements and I agree with Heidegger's concept of Being, Macquarrie/Whitehead's idea of Being as 'Letting Be.' So I begin with philosophers and a mathematician.
                                Actually I have never heard of that description of God: passions and the need for applause?? Actually most religious thinkers would say the exact opposite.

                                Sadly, my assertion reflects history and also speaks to the utter/ultimate meaninglessness of man, of all ......if one accepts the atheist position. Thankfully many of us don't .......thus man, life, creation are meaningful:+}

                                Simply, you attack a caricature of 'old time religion' from your 21st C scientific perch but it is a religion that most of us no longer buy into, either it's worldview or its philosophical system. You speak of a religion in which there are deities and supernatural beings and in which the God is full of passions and in need of applause. I know of no serious thinker who believes any of this. Only you:+} Yet when you speak of the meaningfulness of man you focus on the 21st C while ignoring the whole of human history (including those much less fortunate in our century) where it is evident that there is not a lot of care for one's fellows or society. Thus you try to have it both ways and it is not the reality in either case.

                                Don't take Sisyphus literally - that's seems to be your mistake with religious stories also. Simply reflect on the meaninglessness of his effort (symbolic of all human effort): in the end the rock is where it began, at the bottom. Man made no difference.

                                It is not me who is saying man as a cooperative intelligent social animal is not true or that man in himself is not meaningful or that life is without meaning - I am saying that in the atheist position, any such action if for naught and creation is meaningless.



                                Last edited by thormas; 11-27-2020, 09:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                                28 responses
                                120 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                                1,256 responses
                                55,056 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X