Maybe they are experiencing something you are not. Or some of them are.
IARe you saying people believe in God because they need fear?
LOL hey people watch horror flicks . But, I do not think need fear is what was meant, maybe, I dunno people can be wierd
I’d certainly agree with that, the likes of Dawkins just seem shrill and as moralistic as any preacher. That’s the way with propaganda.
Perhaps the choice of word wasn’t ideal, it came more from your statement about being as atheist as it’s possible to be. It sort of is radical in that it is striped down, though. It certainly wasn’t meant as a pejorative description.
I’m still not clear whether you think this is something that needs to be addressed, philosophically, or just assumed. It seems (note caveat) important to you to address these types of errors, but I don’t know whether it’s important to you whether anyone agrees or not.
I think it can be entertaining, but obviously not philosophical for that. I feel like there’s a way in which that issue can be used to demonstrate philosophical and non-philosophical ways of thinking, but I guess you’d say there are much better ways of doing that.
As for the point about politics, do you mean that religion is about taking sides?
Being is a question of language, though, isn’t it? It’s important for how we talk about things.
No, because they do fear and also fear god. It is both ignorance and coercion.
If I had anything better to do, I would be doing it. Philosophy is, in the end, an art and not a science.
I am not saying that philosophy is science, although it partly is of course (duh!), but I am saying that “philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics”. For this comparison it is absolutely irrelevant whether philosophy is science or not.
I disagree, Army. The Arts without Abstract Expressionism would still be The Arts. And in the main, better for it. Comedy would still be comedy without Tim Allen. And it would certainly be funnier.
matty - That religion is a particular case of metaphysics - it’s just obvious at first glance, is it not? Does anyone indeed disagree? I do not think this is even a little bit controversial. Perhaps I’m wrong.
Metaphysics is a study in reference to the beyond, the beyond of nature.
Religion is practices and dogma in reference to higher powers. There may be a perceived overlap, as when
the higher powers are not understood or perceived to be co-incidental to nature, but generally they are distinguished by the later’s subscription to reliance,
whereas the former only ascribe to the study beyond
nature, including conscious, human endeavors and thoughts.
Although early metaphysics did not concern itself with religion, the broader philosophy, did, as can be seen with the preoccupation with the pagan gods.
Metaphysical questions relating to ontic issues such as universals, and causation, did indirectly influence the anthropomorphic behavior of those gods, but that just about sums up the relationship.
Only much later did philosophy of religion become more central to philosophic thought, especially after Kant sealed up metaphysics, inviting religion to fill the void.
Faust, You are not wrong, only your concepts are unwarranted stretched toward and through an impassible derivation of the sameness of religion and metaphysics.
Faust, I think you were on much stronger terms when you said that theism is metaphysics. Unless you’re claiming that any metaphysical elements are fatally corrupting to everything they touch then I’d say there is more to religion than that - ethical and social features that are still of value to us.
A religion is a particular philosophy from a particular ontological construct (metaphysical construct) being put into social practice. Every ontology is a conceptual model of reality based upon someone’s conjecture. Modern “physics” (formerly known as “natural philosophy”) is no different. In each era and in each social region, one particular ontological construct gains more dominant belief as “The Truth” than others, hence separate religions.
Science became the most recent means to establish firm belief and built a particular ontological construct that is considered “The Truth” in this era and region. Despite empirical success, its ontology has been proven to be less than perfect (aka “not truth”). But that hasn’t stopped Science from becoming the latest religion with all of the same trappings; dogma, ostracizing, blessings, condemnations, garbs, prophets, worshipful followers, priests, preachers, pastures, evangelists, churches, temples,… Science is merely the religion of “technology” (hence all of the math) with the names changed so as to help in the effort for wealthy men to become gods … that never ending wet dream that perverts everything Man ever does.
“Metaphysics” merely refers to the principles behind the physics. There is nothing magical about it but in the past, before the method of science, metaphysics was cursed with an enormity of speculative and “superstitious” ontology. Names of conceptual entities were freely invented so as to fill the gaps of ignorance (exactly like modern day quantum physics, fairy-tale physics). And thus a great many people today have a loathing attached to the word “metaphysics”. In reality, every theory in science is metaphysics. But they don’t dare call it that.
Theism is the use of theory, although the word is used more specifically to target prior religions that involved a supreme “god” - a “Grand Unified Theory” for everything. The atheist arguing against a “God” is actually arguing against Science as well, merely ignorant of it due to the change in names. The religion of Science demands that other religions be seen as entirely bad, evil, and wrong while itself is promoted as the new Truth and savior of Mankind via the new sword called “technology” (“Worship no god before ME”). Anyone speaking against technology is black-marked as “extremist” (aka “devil”) and if in any way a potential threat, a “terrorist” (aka “demon”).
Only the names have changed. The people are the same power lusting maniacs as always, using the exact same methods as always other than better ensuring their success via the weapon known as the “scientific method”.
It has always been:
- Metaphysics (ontological construct)
- Philosophy (a recommended manner of thinking and behaving)
- Religion (a required way of thinking and behaving)
And always driven by power lust and jealousy:
“Nothing new under the Sun” … except for the tic of the tech and the tech of the tic.
jerkey - I’m not going to argue about your reading comprehension abilities, but thanks for weighing in.
matty - I am very much claiming that metaphysics corrupts everything it touches. I did mention in an earlier post that religion is also politics. None of the ways in which I would slander either religion nor metaphysics is exhaustive by itself. As I said, I could complain about either all day. However, religion is by no means entirely objectionable.
You are slightly off-topic, Fausty.
Again:
It’s also true for atheists. The drive behind most atheism is the fear of someone other than yourself as judge over your actions. Atheism vs religion, that battle is always gonna go down to morality wars. Atheism morals will always be dictated by the majority or the powerful, whilst religious nuts will base it of their god(s).
Army - snappy comeback.
Yes, forbid anybody from questioning the religious fairy tales of others. 
The cosmic universe has always existed in some form or another.
If anything the big bang theory was created to satisfy a religious public consumption.
Off-topic again.
Do you know the Lord and Mephistopheles?
Translation: