If enough inconsistencies and contradictions are found in a given text, each instance of such denotes philosophical illegitimacy. After a given percentage the whole doctrine can surely be equally called into question.
If on the other hand, if you can show that aspects of a religious philosophy pertain to observable things; e.g. there are two fundamental polar forces [inwards/outwards [yin/yang]] in this reality [Taoism] and that beyond that duality, is one thing/reality/infinity [buddhism], then you also have some metaphysics to add to your pot.
the main philosophical issue concerning religion, is that God [or what have you] has not written any books. at most he’s done that [according to the believers] via interpreters, and via storytelling.
I think you’re largely correct - there’s no reason to argue about god existing or not. For my thread “a message of purpose” - I would state that it was directed primarily to beginners - obviously. As someone who starts not believing in God or someone in their early 20’s who found nihilism - and is attempting to crawl out - that is what my post is far. For those that may need a little push of direction towards knowledge. With more knowledge, more power becomes, with more power - more options for purpose. Being that the world is largely indoctrinated with religion - it is fairly common for those to reject the religion they were indoctrinated with. As such, the world seems without value. There is no purpose from a greater being called God, anymore. As such, one I would hope, should crawl out of that abyss in order to seek happiness and a fulfilling life.
Is it all about happiness after death? Isn’t it about having hope and happiness in this life as well? It is hope for the poor - as there are many poor and it is comforting in this world to have hope. It provides “peace” with your situation, which might be largely suffering, poverty, etc. It makes you feel better during life to have that hope and enduring suffering here becomes a “cross” - in so much as for the hope of eternal life. It is viable that it does provide hope for so many, and improves their lives, brightens their outlook.
Amorphos - the Sun hasn’t written any books. Do we then doubt its existence?
WWIII - your first comment is one reason I suggest reading Nietzsche. No one is better at providing a blueprint for a happy, godless life. The second comment is one reason I suggest reading the Bible. God’s love might make you feel better about suffering, but it is not designed to relieve the suffering itself. Look to Buddhism for that sort of thing.
Sure Nietzsche has already mastered “my message of purpose”.
I think everyone should read the Bible also. I certainly wouldn’t recommend believing in it though, that’s just detrimental ultimately. You could be happier if there was a book written about how you are going to become a god yourself in your afterlife - and be able to have domain over your own universe just as god does this universe. If you were to believe that fantasy, you’d be even happier, would you not? Or feel even better about your suffering here, if the more you suffer the more powers you gain as this god. Whatever. I don’t see how a philosopher can condone replacing reality with fantasy, just to “feel better”.
You don’t have to believe it to use it to learn about Abrahamic religion. It’s easy enough to believe that it bears out my claim that such religions are not about relieving earthly suffering.
As an avowed atheist, I have read every religious text I could
get my hands on including the bible, multiple times. to be honest,
the most unreadable text is the Koran. Yikes, what a badly written mess.
You can observe the text of any religious book, and none claim to be written by anyone but humans. They can claim that they read something into the texts, or that they tell us something about divinity, but nothing directly.
that’s two categories; knowledge based in derivative information, and let us say ‘meta-knowledge’ NOT based in derivative information = belief.
Morphy - No disrespect, but so what? So what if he got some humans on the payroll to write books for him? The guy who pays the hit man is still guilty of murder. I’m with you on your conclusion, but philosophy isn’t about the conclusions. It’s about the arguments.
I have always held that Atheists have an actual legitimate complaint (not claim, merely complaint). I have never bothered to mention it because common atheists are so busy spouting nonsense. I somewhat stopped defending Christians for a similar (although not identical) reason (when everyone is being stupid, which side does one stand on?). I am curious, considering your theme in this thread if you can identify the Atheist’s truly legitimate complaint against the other religions … ?
The problem with that complaint is that it seems to be clearly wrong. The most scientifically and technologically advanced nations all have Judeo-Christian roots. They are also the most democratic, healthy, and economically prosperous.
So just to be clear : you have done this research and you have reached certain conclusions but you will only tell me the conclusions. You won’t give me the data, reasoning and logic behind it. You expect me to replicate your research.
