PDA

View Full Version : Why Atheism Has a Bright Future



Nachtengel
Saturday, November 11th, 2017, 12:41 PM
When I was a kid, atheists ruled over large swatches of the world and mainstream conventional wisdom expected religion to die out. If Communism (not then acquainted with history's ash-heap) didn't squash faith, then a combination of prosperity and technology would dilute religion into a weak inconsequential tea. Even theologians thought this way: The term "post-religious age" was coined by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Now, though, the pendulum has swung the other way, and even die-hard non-believers proclaim that "the Golden Age of Secularism has passed." But the death of atheism is being exaggerated now as much as the death of God was 40 years ago, at least according to this study: Using statistical models, it predicts that atheist-majority countries will soon dot the globe, for the first time in history.

That is, of course, just the supposedly ghastly fate that Newt Gingrich recently said might befall the United States: He said his grandchildren could end up living in "a secular atheist country." So it seems the post-religious age has gone from inevitable future to boogeyman in an incoherent stump speech (Gingrich said this awful future secular state might end up dominated by Islamists, which shows you just how seriously he takes this blather).

The countries heading for secularism in this paper's model would make poor Gingrich-fodder: It's hard to picture the Netherlands (already 40 percent irreligious) Australia, the Czech Republic (60 percent God-free) Finland or the Netherlands as cesspools of evil and cruelty. Yet the trends described in the paper also belie the claims of Richard Dawkins and his ilk, that atheists are an oppressed minority all over the world. Today, note Daniel M. Abrams, Haley A. Yaple and Richard J. Wiener, the only religious group that's growing in all 50 American states is "No Affiliation," and census data from 85 regions worldwide, in the countries I've mentioned plus New Zealand, Austria, Canada, Ireland, and Switzerland, show the same trend away from identification with faith.

To explain this, the authors, who are physicists, propose a simple mathematical model, in which society is represented as two groups, religion and non-religion, competing for adherents. Their model fits census data from very different nations, they write, which supports their claim that religious adherence in all places has a single underlying explanation. Which is, they argue, simply self-interest: "The model predicts that for societies in which the perceived utility of not adhering is greater than the utility of adhering, religion will be driven toward extinction."

To get the right number for this "perceived utility"—"a quantity encompassing many factors including the social, economic, political and security benefits derived from membership as well as spiritual or moral consonance with a group," they compared different results of their model with actual data from Finland, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands. The model that best fits past data was the one in which faith "will disappear if its perceived utility is less than that of non-affiliation, regardless of how large a fraction initially adheres to a religion." If indeed that's right, then, according to their calculations, 70 percent of the Netherlands population will have no religious affiliation by mid-century.

Plug a different range of numbers into the key variable, though, and the model arrives at a steady state, in which a small social group persists as an island within a much larger group. That, they speculate, was where society spent much of its history, with religious people the vast majority and non-believers a small but constant minority. But modernity changes the perceived utility of religious membership, and that created an abrupt shift from the irreligious-as-stable-minority state to the "religion disappears" state.

Why is all this better than simply projecting current trends forward? Because, they say, they've provided an explanatory mechanism. That lets them be sure that the trend will continue, because it is an instance of a general law, and not a historical accident or coincidence.

The nations that supplied the paper's data are all either European or former European colonies, which means their religious traditions are heavily influence by Christianity, a religion in which conversion counts for a great deal and everyone is reckoned as either a believer or an unbeliever. It's hard to imagine how this model could fit a religion rooted in different principles. Many Jews I know regard themselves as committed to their community but don't believe in God. And for animists, their religion is more of a worldview than a creed they can endorse or abjure. It would be interesting to see how the model fits census data from a non-Europe-derived country.

Still, for those of us who do hope Gingrich's grandchildren live in a secular atheist country, it's an encouraging paper as well as an interesting one. It suggests that even as theists and atheists stage their raging battles over questions that can never be practically answered, a majority in many modern countries will simply drift away. Patience, fellow Godless secularists. Patience!

http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why-atheism-has-a-bright-future

Terminus
Monday, January 1st, 2018, 03:59 AM
Atheism applied in small dosages can be beneficial against blind belief, but good lord, a world without religion could not conceivably exist. It's better to be an agnostic or pagan than to reject ALL conceptions of deity based on contempt towards the monotheistic version.

If Christianity wants to have a place in the future, then it would be wise to drop monotheism. It hardly needs to be pointed out how the Jewish community frequently rebelled against this notion and even began as polytheistic worshipers (of the stars and Saturn) like their neighbors, until Moses installed in them the idea that they were specially "chosen". Monotheism was invented to reinforce this delusion. It is not found anywhere else, not even in Akhenaten's religion.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, January 1st, 2018, 04:36 AM
It is said that monotheism has Aryan roots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Indo-European_religions

You might benefit from reading the rest of the article as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism#The_One

Terminus
Monday, January 1st, 2018, 11:15 AM
Plotinus listed Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, and Empedocles, none of these assigned a personality to "the One".

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, January 1st, 2018, 04:19 PM
Since you don't favor a narrow version of anything and rail against it, there's no reason to hold a double standard against others for failing that litmus test of what constitutes this or that rendering of spirituality. You should just be as birds of a feather.

Wulfaz
Monday, January 1st, 2018, 07:03 PM
The Atheism is just a religion too, they have not any fact that the God or the supernatural are not exists. These are just speculations without any valid arguments, side by side Jesus Christ has lived any thousends met with him and sow his power. The Christianity is more "scientific" like as the false Atheism with its false speculations.

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, February 22nd, 2018, 05:03 AM
In the wise words of Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

The onus is on deists and theists to prove the existence of their asserted god, not on atheists to disprove any such existence.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, February 22nd, 2018, 06:03 AM
Not really, since most people see the obvious and only a minority don't. Should an exception to the rule be seen as the norm? Stereotypes exist for a reason and it has nothing to do with taking out of context and misrepresentation of something uncharacteristic. You want to be eccentric; good for you. It doesn't make you smarter.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Thursday, February 22nd, 2018, 06:03 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/bc/53/c1/bc53c1f9d003ffe207d1b32a58265370.jpg

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, February 22nd, 2018, 09:15 AM
Familiar?

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.404376162.1744/raf,750x1000,075,t,charcoal_heather.jpg

Mööv
Wednesday, February 28th, 2018, 08:08 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/bc/53/c1/bc53c1f9d003ffe207d1b32a58265370.jpg

There indeed was nothing at first :)


Ár var alda,
þat er ekki var,
var-a sandr né sær
né svalar unnir;
jörð fannsk eigi
né upphiminn,
gap var Ginnunga,
en gras ekki."

http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Gylfaginning




Edit:
To powers that be: "Thorn" seems to be not displaying properly for some reason. Instead it displays the code for the letter.

Jäger
Thursday, March 1st, 2018, 07:10 AM
Not really, since most people see the obvious and only a minority don't. Should an exception to the rule be seen as the norm? Stereotypes exist for a reason and it has nothing to do with taking out of context and misrepresentation of something uncharacteristic. You want to be eccentric; good for you. It doesn't make you smarter.
History is full of countless of misconceptions from the general public. Certainly, the quantity of people who think they know something is a bad adviser for truth.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, March 2nd, 2018, 08:11 AM
History is full of countless of misconceptions from the general public. Certainly, the quantity of people who think they know something is a bad adviser for truth.
I don't think most people are idiots nor consider myself a know-it-all. When I did, I thought just like you! Congratulations, former me! :D


There indeed was nothing at first :)



http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Gylfaginning




Edit:
To powers that be: "Thorn" seems to be not displaying properly for some reason. Instead it displays the code for the letter.
But how do you get something from nothing? I only know of getting money for nothing and chicks for free, lol. Does that really work?

How about nothing from something? Does this work for physics? Or, does the world recycle itself?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCHjVQcCAyg

Mööv
Saturday, March 3rd, 2018, 12:11 AM
But how do you get something from nothing? I only know of getting money for nothing and chicks for free, lol. Does that really work?

How about nothing from something? Does this work for physics? Or, does the world recycle itself?


Well, you don't. It doesn't imply it.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, March 3rd, 2018, 12:11 AM
Well, you don't. It doesn't imply it.Then what?

Mööv
Saturday, March 3rd, 2018, 01:00 AM
Then what?
Fire and ice ;)

SpearBrave
Saturday, March 3rd, 2018, 01:09 AM
Or, does the world recycle itself?
Well yes it does, depending on your beliefs. ;)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, March 3rd, 2018, 03:03 AM
Well, you don't. It doesn't imply it.

"There indeed was nothing at first :)" --Your words...

What do you actually believe?


https://youtu.be/dsKCU5ll3D0

Mööv
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 09:03 AM
What do you actually believe?

I believe in myself and my people.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 10:03 AM
Your conception of spirituality without religion is a very notable aspect of the Hippie Jesus Movement. You're just like them, in trying to emancipate faith from religion, but for different reasons. The Jesus Freaks and you both claim that religion is restrictive, although you equally find it to be a Mediterranean/MENA problem. Actually, it has a legit background from Anabaptists and Quakers, who are historical anarchists. William Penn wrote No Cross No Crown for the same reasons we today complain about Big Religion and Big Government. You basically plagiarize their movement already, just changed the name of who/what you care about.

Mööv
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 11:20 AM
I'm not trying to emancipate anything. I'm simply interested in reverting back to times before christianity, completely erasing from existence everything related to it.
You are simply well lobotomised by christianity and are unable to see beyond it. You even interpret other people as if they were speaking from a christian standpoint when they clearly are not.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 02:20 PM
You are just as derivative of the same conditions as any Christian. Hypocrite. Your post-Christian view using the rhetoric of anachronism is unmatched by reality. You are the product of a million matings by Christians and whether you are Christian, posing as "Heathen" or atheist, you are unwittingly influenced by them. Go ahead and hate yourself for it. There's no escape but suicide.

If you're the product of all this "ignorance", you must hate your race for being so worthless, but how could you be uncharacteristic of all who came before you? You take Luther's charge of Papal deceit to a new level, by making his influence overwhelming to the point of victimhood status in your ancestors, as noble savages too helpless--hapless fools before people who you claim aren't smart enough. You insult all your ancestors by this horrible view. You're the only smart one in your genetic petri dish? It takes you to rise above the ignorance-peddling Pope? Isn't the Pope too stupid, enthralled by a "desert religion"? Your contradictions collapse.

You may not like the parody called Asatru, but there's nothing you can do to reconstruct the original "undefiled" conditions preceding Christianity. Christianity also does not exist in a vacuum and its population as well as ideology are rooted in the original Heathen population. Some Christians are as ignorantly unappreciative of this as you are, which makes you two sides of the same coin. You're just another nihilist with nothing to offer, but everything to take away. You feel the cold void of atheism and look for answers but won't find any by attacking everything and anything you really don't understand.

If you think Christianity is foreign, why not tear down all the farms in Europe, as forms of biowarfare? After all, cereal grains and some animals come from the Middle East, or were domesticated there first. When are you going to give up arabica coffee? Did you know that Midgard and Middle Earth are translations of Mediterranean? How do you propose to purify yourself of all cultural and social "infections"? How can you guarantee that what you know of historical Heathenry is not influenced by Papist scribes, or imitations of other Indo-European traditions? You really are a "smarty-pants", huh?

phil_lip
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 03:20 PM
The Atheism is one of religion of Satan’s plan

Jäger
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 07:20 PM
I don't think most people are idiots nor consider myself a know-it-all. When I did, I thought just like you! Congratulations, former me!:D

You mean you used to make actual arguments?
Do you think David Hume and Gustave Le Bon are idiots?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 08:12 PM
I don't like Hume but I do like Locke. I'm unfamiliar with that Frenchie, sorry. Gustave le Bon:

Influenced
Benito Mussolini, José Ortega y Gasset, Sigmund Freud, Wilfred Trotter, Oswald Spengler, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Edward Bernays, Robert E. Park, Wilfred Bion, Muhammad Abduh

I can't say that I like the fruit from his tree...

I don't need your gurus to make actual arguments. I'd say that you are a lemming of another kind. Pat yourself on the back.

Jäger
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 08:12 PM
I don't need your gurus to make actual actual arguments.
Take whomever you need then!

You said that many people believing something to be true indicates it is true. I said history is full of counter examples. If you are interested in a discussion about truth you can either reply to me that history is not full of such examples or that even if it is, why it does not apply here.
Instead you say you think most peoples are not idiots. Failing to make an actual argument I even humor you and ask if you consider two specific people as idiots, because they contradict your statement. If you don't think "people" are idiots, and "people" contradict your statement, what does this make logically?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, March 4th, 2018, 10:22 PM
There's no cookie cutter answer I could make to satisfy your demand and it's my prerogative to form my own arguments, whether you like the substances thereof or not. Life is not so simple. I'm convinced that Hume, for instance, was bright in some areas and not so in others. This is the case for most people on the planet. I did in fact specify why I found le Bon unsatisfactory. I don't feel like calling others "idiots" over disagreement. Some people make themselves idiots by doing so. You want to assert that everyone is a bunch of zombies, even as you have your own Pied Pipers. We're all disciples of this or that teacher, if we apply ourselves adequately to cultivate their message.

If you want to discuss Truth, then maybe you can ask Mööv how objectivity is contained within a single culture, as if most people worldwide don't have basic morality and varying levels of superstition vs enlightenment. Ethnic beliefs are notoriously provincial, for subjective bias overrides greater wisdom. If you want to communicate with glittering generalities and not debate specific examples, that's fine too. Usually, interplay between examples and rhetoric make for better results. You're certainly frustrated, but I doubt that's my fault.

Mööv
Monday, March 5th, 2018, 09:40 AM
. You insult all your ancestors by this horrible view.

No I don't. I accept some of them made a mistake by dragging this horrible disgusting middle-eastern dogma this far, so I'm correcting that mistake. It would be insulting not to do so, than to do it.




You're the only smart one in your genetic petri dish?

No... although there were historically significant Christards in my clan, they were very few. As far as my line goes, we mostly avoid churches like a plague.



but there's nothing you can do to reconstruct the original "undefiled" conditions preceding Christianity.

You are very wrong there. It is, in fact, very possible. Though something like that would need to take time. Must not rush things.



Christianity also does not exist in a vacuum and its population as well as ideology are rooted in the original Heathen population.

Those would be the Catholics and Orthodoxes. The ones you call "medicist". ;)



Some Christians are as ignorantly unappreciative of this as you are

You? :D



which makes you two sides of the same coin.

I'm afraid we are not the same. Nice try.



If you think Christianity is foreign, why not tear down all the farms in Europe, as forms of biowarfare? After all, cereal grains and some animals come from the Middle East, or were domesticated there first. When are you going to give up arabica coffee?

You are mixing apples and oranges. Though agriculture should be reduced, yes.




How do you propose to purify yourself of all cultural and social "infections"?

Feuer und Eis ;)


How can you guarantee that what you know of historical Heathenry is not influenced by Papist scribes

Yes there has been some influence. But it can be identified and rectified.



You really are a "smarty-pants", huh?

Oh, yeah!
:bowking:

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, March 5th, 2018, 02:54 PM
Christianity is hardly Middle Eastern, unless you also consider Persians, Greeks, Romans and Celts to be Semites. Christianity is of these "Aryan" origins. Jews were invited and responded with assassination, so they were anathematized. It is arguable that Celts and Germans are not at all different, certainly not as much as the chasm between both and Greco-Romans, but we're still all Indo-Europeans with common theology.

Your POV about "religious people" isn't that different from the Buddhist perspective on Hindus, or as how the Hellenistic philosophers viewed temple activities. Your sarcastic misanthropy isn't really a human virtue or anything admirable. Half a century of Soviet enslavement would tend to do that to people.

If you want to form a revisionist, utopian commune, by all means, have at it.

What I don't like about Mediterranean and MENA peoples is to do with their authoritarianism, but National Socialism thought of bridging the gap between Fascism and Communism. England remained free of Latin and Greek delusions about power and order. Like I said, I agree with Locke. I believe in the importance of the social contract.

I'm referring to Christians who are anti-Heathen.

You are just like them, trying to purge yourself of your own heritage.

What's wrong with self-sufficiency in your food sources? Do you want to keep importing exotic foods any more than exotic ideologies?

Sturm und Drang?

Really? How far back in centuries do you need to research to find the perfect, untainted folk culture? You really believe it's possible? What about pre-history?

Arrogance is no enlightenment. LOL

Mööv
Monday, March 5th, 2018, 04:39 PM
Christianity is hardly Middle Eastern, unless you also consider Persians, Greeks, Romans and Celts to be Semites.

No. Christianity might have taken some influence from Persians, Romans and Greeks, but in essence it is a Jewish cult.
Protestantism, that you so dearly hold, has actually removed much of European influence from it making it almost completely Jewish.



Christianity is of these "Aryan" origins.

Yes. Jeshua, a very "Aryan" name for a very "Aryan" guy



Jews were invited and responded with assassination, so they were anathematized.

They didn't have to be invited anywhere, because they were the original christians. What's the point of inviting yourself to your own home? You are not making sense.



Your sarcastic misanthropy isn't really a human virtue or anything admirable. Half a century of Soviet enslavement would tend to do that to people.

Soviets!? Where'd you pull them out of and by what logic?



If you want to form a revisionist, utopian commune, by all means, have at it.

Of course I will. You didn't think I was going to ask you for permission?




You are just like them, trying to purge yourself of your own heritage.

No, I'm simply curing myself from a hideous disease.




What's wrong with self-sufficiency in your food sources? Do you want to keep importing exotic foods any more than exotic ideologies?

Apples and oranges again.
But if I must answer, I really don't care about imports. Would do great without that.



Really? How far back in centuries do you need to research to find the perfect, untainted folk culture? You really believe it's possible? What about pre-history?

Just to before Christards screwed it all up, no need to go further.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, March 5th, 2018, 05:41 PM
You are forgetting Galatians, i.e. Celts. You know, the ones Paul told to stay away from the dirty Jews. Which Protestants do you refer to? Certainly not the Germanic folk churches of nationalistic countries rebelling against Rome. If you refer to cults who say Jehovah instead of God, Deus or Theos, then you may have a point. Jehovah isn't our choice of Supreme Being.

Jesus became Christ and a whole lot of those people abandoned their Jewish identities in the quest to become part of the greater Aryan society and culture. I guess you conveniently have not read the Bible. Read Maccabees, Acts and Galatians and come back to me. Also, read up on the parts that the Persian Emperors and Alexander the Great play in the Old Testament with respect for Zionism.

Talmudic/Midrash Jews had no interest in a truly universal philosophical spirituality, unlike the Hellenists under Alexander, a student of Aristotle--what do you think was the reason for building the Library, where the Bible was written? The Jews and Arabs just wanted to live out ethnic religions that kept their quirks and quaintness, just like you. You've got a lot in common in your man worship and hatred for Christian illumination. Are you Pilate, washing your hands of the execution, hand in hand with the ZOG?

You've obviously got a lot of post-Soviet degeneracy in East Germany influencing you, especially since the Wall was torn down. Somehow, Cultural Marxism and deconstructionism are supposed to be safer when not backed up with hydrogen bombs. Go ahead and do their work for them, at your own expense.

I don't care what you do. There are eccentric conventicles here, there and everywhere.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

If you could make a completely self-sustaining society, it might look like North Korea. At least, that's what their main goal is.

Time travel is one of those things fun in science fiction, that has no place in reality.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 10:41 AM
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions" -- David Hume

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Writings_on_religion

The Natural History of Religion. Here he argued that the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all derive from earlier polytheistic religions.

Mööv
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 11:50 AM
Which Protestants do you refer to? Certainly not the Germanic folk churches of nationalistic countries rebelling against Rome.


Oh. I see. You live in a fantasy world and think it's still 17th century. Nice to know. Would you like me to call you a doctor?



If you refer to cults who say Jehovah instead of God, Deus or Theos, then you may have a point. Jehovah isn't our choice of Supreme Being.

Who is it then? Little green men from Aldebaran?
Yuo call Hungarians Hungarians, but they call themselves Magyar. It's still the same people. So is your desert god.



Jesus became Christ

Jeshua is Jeshua. An impaled jew. You may call him Billy if you like, still doesn't change what he is.



and a whole lot of those people abandoned their Jewish identities in the quest to become part of the greater Aryan society and culture.

And that would be good how exactly?
I don't know about you, but I don't want sand-people running around here calling themselves Aryan, German, Norwegian, or whatever.
Perhaps you are just a very confused medicist.



I guess you conveniently have not read the Bible.

Did so when I was young. It was bullshit then, and so it is now.




Are you Pilate, washing your hands of the execution, hand in hand with the ZOG?

I'm not the one worshiping Jews. You are.




You've obviously got a lot of post-Soviet degeneracy in East Germany influencing you, especially since the Wall was torn down. Somehow, Cultural Marxism and deconstructionism are supposed to be safer when not backed up with hydrogen bombs. Go ahead and do their work for them, at your own expense.

What?



Time travel is one of those things fun in science fiction, that has no place in reality.

Hey, I'm not the one stuck in 17th century Europe. So...

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 04:25 PM
You want to go back 2,000 years ago and yet balk at 400? Pot. Kettle. Black. How did it look in terms of connotations when Hitler took List's advice and turned the Iron Cross of the Teutonic Knights into the Indian Swastika and what did it change? What Germanic designs did Hitler have Speer get out of Greco-Roman architecture and how did this instill pride in German culture by those obedient to der Fuehrer? In the hands of people with the declared rhetorical motive and the power to effect such change as you wish, they did no such thing. Of course, this is no different than the stated aims of the Communist Manifesto supposedly being Utopian, only for it to be dystopian in practice.

The point is, Indo-Europeans still invoke the same Sky Father that we've worshiped for at least another 2,000 years, in all likelihood being that long. The fact that we look at Him and His relationship with another heroic Son by a mortal woman doesn't detract from anything. What's the difference between Odin hanging from Yggdrasil and Christ on the Cross? Who made who? Is it so necessary to make a choice of one at the expense of the other. Either is better than atheism.

Christ is many things to different people, but chiefly a mouthpiece of God, like the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, yet in the form of a Buddha or Socrates. Perhaps God thought that the Kikes of all peoples on the planet needed to see the Light, but rejected it and He stopped caring, so they are very irrelevant, to match their irreverence. As they rejected Him, He rejected them. God grants us favor instead. Unlike Thorburn, I don't think of Jews as particularly intelligent and hardly proven to have an intellect. It took assimilation by our Aryan empires to cultivate any sense of enlightenment and the Jews reacted violently to it, whereas us Gentiles have benefited. Would you be as ignorant as the Jews?

Ashkenazim declared their love for the German Empire no different than Hitler and cast off all other loyalties their ancestors may have had. Look at how they were repaid. Whoever didn't want a part of Germany got into Zionism. It was one or the other, not both. I'm not blind to the lust for imperial power that has typified Aryans of all kinds, ours no exception. Christ Himself made an observation about this very issue concerning Gentiles. In fact, it may be our chief defect and so, He taught us to be better than that. This is complementary to our mutual disinterest in authoritarianism. However, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and not many Jews purposely absconded their own heritage. They composed the Talmud in reaction to Christianity, because the Trinity is an "evil" Heathen theology that they could not be arsed to comprehend, much less worship. The Jews and Arabs may have felt that we in some way had engaged in cultural appropriation, in the process of domination of their lands, so the Koran spelled out in no uncertain terms just what Semites believe and they live this out in totally different ways from Christendom. Your own repugnance to Mohammedanism is from Christian mores.

You have to look at the Bible from a social studies or social sciences POV. I analyze it this way all the time when I have it open, whether I'm studying alone or sitting in the pew at church, regardless of what is the topic at hand.

I don't worship any Jews. If you think God is a Jew, then you give them far too much credit. I don't know any Jews personally. I do laugh at the Jews in Maccabees. I'm on the side of all the Gentiles in the Bible, including Goliath. The Philistines or Palestinians had European origins, as one of the Sea Peoples from the Isles of the Gentiles. Sardinians were another of the Sea Peoples.

You're committing cultural suicide at the same time Indo-Europeans are becoming irrelevant in our own countries everywhere. This is what the Soviets wanted. The Kremlin may have lost direct control, but is winning the Kulturkampf even after 1989 & 1991. That's like dead musicians putting out chart-topping records, a pretty common phenomenon these days.

You're the one who wants to believe in a far less likely revival, from what...the Bronze Age in some century BC, before we even had runes? Archaeologists don't call it the "Roman" Iron Age for no reason. What about the clubs of Hercules found in Germany? Your penchant for revivalism echoes that of the "Christians" who claim we ought to live in the Old Testament. I wish for neither, for Gentiles don't have much to do in the OT, although much of Judaism after the Torah is derived from Persia and Books, like the Apocrypha, are of Greek origin. On the other hand, your perception of Christianity, is as though it is a manifestation of the OT, as if not the NT. Whoever disavows of the NT is Jewish, so it is clear that you would rather erase the NT and let the OT speak for itself. Do you support Jews or Gentiles? The problem is, there was no canonical version of the OT before the Greeks wrote the Septuagint, for the Masoretic Text was written only as early as the Holy Roman Empire. The only reason why Protestantism has sourced from the Masoretic Text, is to filter out any Greek/Orthodox bias from the Septuagint, or Latin/Catholic bias from the Vulgate, to make a version totally responsive to Germanics, however it worked. You have to realize that the only reason the Ptolemaic dynasty was interested in making the Septuagint, was for translating what was deemed a Persian cultural artifact. There is no pure Hebraic faith or religion; what was once a Magician's spirituality in Chaldea became splintered into the Hebrews and Arabs of Abraham in Genesis, then it became transformed into beliefs of Israelites in Egypt connected with Atenism and throughout Exodus in the 1st Temple period, until the Captivities after Solomon, thereafter becoming Judaism and especially when set free by Persia in the 2nd Temple period. Christianity actually exists in a Gentile vacuum where Jews might otherwise be, theoretically. There has been no real Jewry since Rome took out Jerusalem in AD 70 and turned it into AElia Capitolina, turning Judea into Syria Palaestina.

Mööv
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 05:46 PM
You want to go back 2,000 years ago and yet balk at 400?

I didn't mean literally go back 2000 years. You on the other hand think that 30 year's war is still burning through Europe.
But that's the problem with you chrisians. You are incapable of any thought, you just take in everything literally and repeat it like parrots.



How did it look in terms of connotations when Hitler took List's advice and

First Soviets, now Hitler. Running out of arguments?



The point is, Indo-Europeans still invoke the same Sky Father that we've worshiped for at least another 2,000 years, in all likelihood being that long.

If by "we the Indo-Europeans" you mean "we the christians" than no. You are invoking a local Jewish god.



The fact that we look at Him and His relationship with another heroic Son by a mortal woman doesn't detract from anything. What's the difference between Odin hanging from Yggdrasil and Christ on the Cross?

Well, unlike your Jeshua, Odin is not Jewish. And he didn't literally hang from a tree.



I'm not blind to the lust for imperial power that has typified Aryans of all kinds, ours no exception. Christ Himself made an observation about this very issue concerning Gentiles. In fact, it may be our chief defect and so, He taught us to be better than that.

Yes he taught you to be weak and an easy target for Jewish imperialism.



Your own repugnance to Mohammedanism is from Christian mores.

No. I simply dislike anyone trying to subject me and turn me into something I'm not. That is I hate islam, christianity and judaism equally.




You're committing cultural suicide at the same time Indo-Europeans are becoming irrelevant in our own countries everywhere.

No I'm not. And we are becoming irrelevant because for centuries we were eaten from inside by the cancer called christianity.



This is what the Soviets wanted.

Marxism sprang from christianity. Without it there would be no bolsheviks.



Your penchant for revivalism echoes that of the "Christians" who claim we ought to live in the Old Testament. I wish for neither, for Gentiles don't have much to do in the OT, although much of Judaism after the Torah is derived from Persia and Books, like the Apocrypha, are of Greek origin. On the other hand, your perception of Christianity, is as though it is a manifestation of the OT, as if not the NT. Whoever disavows of the NT is Jewish, so it is clear that you would rather erase the NT and let the OT speak for itself. Do you support Jews or Gentiles?

NT was made so that people like you would feel better about themselves. Like contemporary marxist utilise safe-spaces.
It still doesn't change the fact that christianity is what it is.
So no, I do not support Jews. I support my own. You on the other hand do support Jews, by being a member of their cult.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 08:19 PM
You want to be a necromancer for conditions which are impossible. That's because our ancestors did not live in laboratory isolation. It's no different than how 17th century conditions didn't support a continuance of the alignment as it was. This is both good and bad in both situations, so we must both get with the program. You don't think I didn't ever look at it how you do now? I take the good with the bad over the 2,000 years since, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's not possible to accurately reconstruct or reconstitute the exact same form of ancient culture, because of everything else that has changed and our ignorance about the entirety of the fragmentary archaeological record and the biased historical references. Everything is in a constant state of flux, not at a standstill and there's consequently no perfect stage of culture. People who have used your rhetoric destroyed Germany in the process and made a revisionist parody of what our ancestors believed. If the shoe fits, Cinderella, go ahead and wear it.

Our Indo-European ancestors merely adopted Christ as another Son of the Sky Father. Of course, for some reason, we Germanics worship Odin rather than Tyr, so we don't use the same name for the Supreme Being that the Greco-Romans do. We invoke God, a derivative from Odin, not call upon Deus Pater or Theos (Zeus) as they do in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Get with the times; our religion has changed.

So you want to negate obvious parallels between the supposedly pure Asa faith and the supposedly degenerate Christianity. These are not mutually exclusive beliefs, so keep deluding yourself that they have not influenced and informed each other.

Between the Herodians and the 20th century, there's been no real Jewish state, unless you mean the Khazars. If you mean Arab imperialism, then you'd have a point. It can be argued that the Caliphate took after the Jews and the ethnic or racial divisions of Islam still exist, between Semitic Arabs and Aryan Persians. In Christendom, until very recently, Jewry lived in ghettos (you know the Nazis resurrected this segregation, right?) as Negroes do now. Would you say that Negroes have any imperialism that we are imprisoned by?

I suspect you will never be satisfied with your iconoclasm and you would eradicate by nihilism everything meaningful in Germany, given half the chance. I'm glad that you are not in power then, but that doesn't mean I praise those currently in office. My anachronistic idealism for Germany only goes back to post-Bonapartist, pre-Second Reich conditions. A free association of equally independent German states...

We weren't irrelevant until the Cold War battlefields of the hearts and minds. This is what I referred to when addressing Cultural Marxism and societal deconstruction, which is what's eating us alive, exactly what the Soviets wanted. Europe is responsible for adopting Socialism and trying to synthesize or fuse it with Christianity to make it palatable to the anti-Communists. You must be pretty young if you don't understand any of those things.

Karl Marx was raised a secular Converso and this is the only "Judeo-Christian" nonsense to back up what you're saying.

I'm not a follower of the Mosaic Law. I observe no Jewish holidays or rituals. I probably eat far more pork and bacon than you. The paint inside my microwave peeled off from the grease and the electrical parts thereof finally burnt out, solely from stuffing myself with chunks of bacon. Do Jews kill their microwaves over bacon? We use the oven now, but still cook up whole packages of bacon in one sitting. You're the one agitating for a "safe space" from your own culture, from your own people. Maybe you're just trying to dress up your degeneracy from good Christian roots by pointing the finger elsewhere. Sure, Jews have been hell-bent on destroying Christianity for us Gentiles subordinating them and you use their own propaganda whereby we are depicted as worshiping a parody of Judaism. This is just another tactic of theirs that you embrace to attack yourself and fellow Gentiles from the inside. This is what I meant by calling you a modern Pilate, holding hands with the modern Caiaphas of this world. You join with the Jews in calling for Christian blood. How easily duped you are by the Jews.

Mööv
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 09:40 PM
You want to be a necromancer for conditions which are impossible.
It's not possible to accurately reconstruct or reconstitute the exact same form of ancient culture, because of everything else that has changed and our ignorance about the entirety of the fragmentary archaeological record and the biased historical references.

Spoken like a true defeatist coward. No wonder you have snugged yourself in the arms of a safe-space religion.



Everything is in a constant state of flux, not at a standstill and there's consequently no perfect stage of culture.

Yes, so what? I should give up and kneel before your Jewish god?



People who have used your rhetoric destroyed Germany in the process and made a revisionist parody of what our ancestors believed. If the shoe fits, Cinderella, go ahead and wear it.






Our Indo-European ancestors merely adopted Christ as another Son of the Sky Father.

Perhaps, inside you head.



We invoke God, a derivative from Odin





You must be pretty young if you don't understand any of those things.

No, I'm not. You're just spewing too much chaotic nonsense.



I probably eat far more pork and bacon than you.

I don't see how this is relevant, but... you probably don't. If you'd dare to compete in pork eating with anyone from around here you'd probably end up getting a heart attack.



we are depicted as worshiping a parody of Judaism. This is just another tactic of theirs that you embrace to attack yourself and fellow Gentiles from the inside. This is what I meant by calling you a modern Pilate, holding hands with the modern Caiaphas of this world. You join with the Jews in calling for Christian blood. How easily duped you are by the Jews.

Yes you are. Because it is so. There's no tactic or conspiracy. And no, I am not duped by anyone. I explained that already. But talking to you is no different than talking to a brick wall. And I'm honestly getting bored of all the repetitive CI twisting of the reality.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 10:57 PM
What's defeatist or finding a safe space in opening my eyes to universal Truth that transcends time and space? I could throw in the towel like you and pretend there's a place to run and hide from reality by constantly griping about change, the most inevitable fact of life. LOL

I don't have a Jewish god that you fear is everywhere behind everything wrong in your life. I'd say you bank on the Jews more than I would be caught dead doing, spewing out their propaganda and arraying yourself against Christendom. In my country, there have been a few elections where post-Christian secular candidates sought the White House with Jewish and Muslim running mates: Gore and Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry, Biden and Obama, all no different than Pilate and Caiaphas. The other side has had devout Christians (& whatever Trump is) and my country is split between these two, on the verge of another civil war. I voted for Bush and Cheney, McCain and Palin, Romney and Ryan, Trump and Pence. No Semites in office, just American English, Irish and Germans who are comfortable with the Final Solution being Zionism, rather than have Jews actually in office as the other party wants. If you have any functional alternative to this political system, I'll listen.

You have no real plan to live out your rhetoric. You just hate on fellow Indo-Europeans: blah blah blah yourself. You don't live in reality and have no practical or pragmatic logic.

Judaism doesn't believe in our demigod and trinitarian theology, nor does it proclaim our Sky Father divinity as we do. You don't know the difference between Jews and Gentiles, or are just dishonest. It's more likely that you are a tool, than anything else.

The word "God" and "Odin" have a common Germanic etymology. It was discussed on Skadi a long time ago. It's of different derivation than Tyr/Deus/Theos.

You really don't understand power politics and information warfare, because you are a victim of it.

I don't like Kosher influence in the deli. There's hardly as much pork as there used to be. I buy imported German sausages from the jar at my local ALDI. That's because I don't want to always have to cook my pork. Do you like pork rinds? I can't get enough! Whenever we cook pork steaks, I marinate my toast in the grease and eat the solid fat strips. My grandmother always cooked French fries in bacon fat stored just for that purpose. Every time we get lunch meat, this includes Black Forest ham. Every Thanksgiving and Christmas, we have spiral cut honey glazed ham. Two things I drool over in the deli are Braunschweiger and "head cheese", but have bought and tried chorizo a few times too. I eat pickled pig's feet every now and then. I even bought pig brains and chitterlings, but haven't the "intestinal fortitude" to actually eat them, so that was a waste of money. I didn't know that lobster is forbidden by Kosher for the longest time. Too bad, because I was raised on New England cuisine. Clamcakes, lobster and crab stuffed mushrooms dripping with cheese and butter, Bacon-wrapped scallops: YUM! I love black pudding aka blood sausage! I'm bowing down to no Jewish culture in the slightest. I may be "Aryan", but have no sacred cows either.

You are a tool, most certainly. Christianity is the only religion with an intrinsic, explicit and fundamental anti-Semitism to begin with. There's no other religion whose raison d'etre stems from hatred for Jewry. Your reply is a Jewish one, to claim that we Gentiles are merely bastard imposters. Nice move, Mööv!

Jäger
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 11:32 PM
There's no cookie cutter answer I could make to satisfy your demand and it's my prerogative to form my own arguments, whether you like the substances thereof or not.
The point is that if I say something and you do in no way take that into account in your response (since you did not even try to refute my point) you have no interest in a real discussion.

And could you please respond normally, rather than in comments, this is annoying.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, March 7th, 2018, 11:54 PM
What do you want to hear? How may I be your echo chamber? Do you need to make an example of me in order to reinforce your delusions? You concede that I need not even be there for you to be self-satisfied. It makes no difference what I write anyway. You know everything, or don't you? I mean, since I'm just another member of the herd. You've already made up your mind. I'm learning as I go along with Mööv. Every time he thinks he's made the ultimate irrational insult, I match that with factual refutation.

I wasn't aware that you are the OP and have a right or even privilege to decide the framework for our debate. What's wrong with asymmetrical communication? My points are ignored on a regular basis and I'm not fuming over it, even when I do make the board threads for discussion. There's no clean conversation where it's so tidy as to serve one bias and all truth be claimed to emanate from one side. I don't play gotcha games and do not believe that I myself corner the market on astute observations. Do you?

Mööv
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 01:54 AM
What's defeatist or finding a safe space in opening my eyes to universal Truth that transcends time and space? I could throw in the towel like you and pretend there's a place to run and hide from reality by constantly griping about change, the most inevitable fact of life.

You're the one running away from reality and change and hiding behind the comfort of religion, not me.



I don't have a Jewish god that you fear is everywhere behind everything wrong in your life. I'd say you bank on the Jews more than I would be caught dead doing, spewing out their propaganda and arraying yourself against Christendom.

Ah, so first I'm a "chrsitian but don't realise it" and now I'm a "jew arraying aginst christianity"... how nice.



You have no real plan to live out your rhetoric. You just hate on fellow Indo-Europeans: blah blah blah yourself. You don't live in reality and have no practical or pragmatic logic.





Judaism doesn't believe in our demigod and trinitarian theology, nor does it proclaim our Sky Father divinity as we do. You don't know the difference between Jews and Gentiles, or are just dishonest. It's more likely that you are a tool, than anything else.

Yes yes, and Jehowas witnesses don't do everything exactly as you do yet they still are christian. Same way christianity came out of judaism. It may do some things a little different, but it still is the child of it's parent. And no amount of disguises is going to ever change that.



The word "God" and "Odin" have a common Germanic etymology.

No they don't.



You are a tool, most certainly. Christianity is the only religion with an intrinsic, explicit and fundamental anti-Semitism to begin with. There's no other religion whose raison d'etre stems from hatred for Jewry.

Ah, the child hating it's parent.
And that is your reasoning for being a christian? Just antisemitism? What a waste of life.



Your reply is a Jewish one, to claim that we Gentiles are merely bastard imposters.







Sorry Mööv , there is no way you eat more pork than I do.....yup I love to fork the pork.....hey that rymes. LOL

If the gods will it, we shall put that to the test one day.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 02:59 AM
What comfort from religion? I have an understanding of accountability that I did not acknowledge before. I was something of a hedonist until I allowed myself to be judged for falling short of the same standards that I held against others and understood the point of a consensus in mutual expectations. That might be why you don't like it.

You're a cultural Christian who has rejected it on the basis of secular Judaic distortions, exactly as they want to see happen to Christians.

You don't acknowledge the obvious: Judaism morphed into Islam and Hellenism et al morphed into Christianity. The fact that they crossed paths does not belie these facts.

I don't remember the conversation, sorry. The specific use of God was taken from the Lombard version of Odin/Woden, which began with a G. One meaning is to pour like "ingot" and another is related to "wit", like Witan, the Anglo-Saxon counsel. This connection may be the Well of Mimir, from whence Odin drew His wisdom. It was also established that God, Goth and Odin all come from the same background, like Yngve-Freyr connecting with Angles and Frisians.

You are obsessively Judeophobic and cringe at any imagined implication or connotation, so, when informed that Christianity is the only religion to actually name Jewry as the enemy, you do mental gymnastics to fantasize that it is the same as when homophobes hate on homosexuals, it must be because they are themselves in the closet. Think of that when it is so obvious that the ultimate origin of your fixation with Jewry comes from Christianity, so you are caught in a circular argument as an example par excellence of what you claim is my own problem. If I don't want Mexicans in my country, does this make me Mexican? You have very specious reasoning and lazy bandwagoneering in the place of actual critical analysis.

Mööv
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 05:22 AM
You're a cultural Christian who has rejected it on the basis of secular Judaic distortions, exactly as they want to see happen to Christians.

You don't acknowledge the obvious: Judaism morphed into Islam and Hellenism et al morphed into Christianity. The fact that they crossed paths does not belie these facts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuyS4Q1ArXc



I don't remember the conversation, sorry. The specific use of God was taken from the Lombard version of Odin/Woden, which began with a G ... It was also established that God, Goth and Odin all come from the same background

Was it?
Do give proof.



You are obsessively Judeophobic and cringe at any imagined implication or connotation, so, when informed that Christianity is the only religion to actually name Jewry as the enemy, you do mental gymnastics to fantasize that it is the same as when homophobes hate on homosexuals, it must be because they are themselves in the closet. Think of that when it is so obvious that the ultimate origin of your fixation with Jewry comes from Christianity, so you are caught in a circular argument as an example par excellence of what you claim is my own problem. If I don't want Mexicans in my country, does this make me Mexican? You have very specious reasoning and lazy bandwagoneering in the place of actual critical analysis.

I'm afraid I do not have a fixation on Jews.
It just so happens that christianity is a Jewish religion so I'm simply pointing that out. If it were a Bantu religion I would then say it was Bantu, because that is a fact, not because I have a fixation or am Judeophobic or whatever nonsense. You are the one raising christianity on a pedestal for being anti-semitic not me.
The point is - it is a foreign religion and has no place here. Did it adapt by absorbing some European customs and beliefs? Yes it did. Every bad virus adapts so it can abuse it's host more efficiently and over a long period of time.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 08:03 AM
Deflections and distortions. Why bother leading you to water, except to drown your troll arse? I don't care if you drink. In fact, it's more amusing to watch you struggling from thirst. You do have a "religion" binding you from any satisfaction and it shows. This is like those situations at work where I say "good riddance" and rejoice that it all goes to shit because it's totally not my problem. We're all responsible for our own concerns and mine have never consisted of your soul. It's just fun watching how braindead you are, so poking at your comatose corpse was amusing to an extent. What's your intention for all the Christian chapels and altars? Do you set them on fire and level them all? How about grave and rune stones? Are you wanting to deface every sign of the Cross that exists and reduce to rubble all evidence of Christianity? You're no better than the Taliban and ISIS. You're all about demoralizing your own people by destroying the cultural treasures that they've passed down to you. You would be left with nothing. Might as well let the Muslims do it for you. You don't have to bother lifting a finger if they would.

Theunissen
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 04:03 PM
In the wise words of Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

The onus is on deists and theists to prove the existence of their asserted god, not on atheists to disprove any such existence.
But Atheism makes a positive knowledge claim: "There is no God". So it's only Agnostics that can use above excuse.

And Theist do give several proofs for their positions. It's just that Atheists ignore it, while Agnostics dismiss it as insufficient.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 08:00 PM
Atheists believe in God in the same way that paleontologists believe in dragons. They just call them euphemistic names and come up with their own dogmas about them. Redefinition of reality to suit bias is a common human trait. Shakespeare pointed out that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Mööv
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 09:10 PM
Deflections and distortions. Why bother leading you to water, except to drown your troll arse? I don't care if you drink. In fact, it's more amusing to watch you struggling from thirst. You do have a "religion" binding you from any satisfaction and it shows. This is like those situations at work where I say "good riddance" and rejoice that it all goes to shit because it's totally not my problem. We're all responsible for our own concerns and mine have never consisted of your soul. It's just fun watching how braindead you are, so poking at your comatose corpse was amusing to an extent.

LOL! Good to know I'm the one distorting! For a moment I thought it was your über-nordic protestant Jesus.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 09:19 PM
God is everything to everyone, or He would not be God. The fact that everyone has a version of their own doesn't argue against it. If you think God is subordinate to specific human culture, then you have a small mind indeed. Atheist drivel about believers would make sense, if they referred to you. Then again, atheists also choose their own revisionist version. Everyone has a take on the same issues except agnostics.

Jäger
Friday, March 9th, 2018, 09:23 PM
What do you want to hear?
I told you that already.

I made a point, you did respond (no one forced you to). In that response you neither refuted my point nor conceded it. You just said something irrelevant to my point, and that in a condescending manner I may add.
What other conclusion is there that you are not interested in a real discussion, and thus not in truth?

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, March 10th, 2018, 03:30 AM
But Atheism makes a positive knowledge claim: "There is no God". So it's only Agnostics that can use above excuse.

And Theist do give several proofs for their positions. It's just that Atheists ignore it, while Agnostics dismiss it as insufficient.
Theists can provide "several proofs for their positions"? In other words, theists can provide several "proofs" of the existence of the god in which they believe? Really? And what might these "proofs" be?

Jäger
Saturday, March 10th, 2018, 03:47 AM
Atheists believe in God in the same way that paleontologists believe in dragons. They just call them euphemistic names and come up with their own dogmas about them. Redefinition of reality to suit bias is a common human trait. Shakespeare pointed out that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
I agree, however religions are not content with you "just" believing in God. They are very keen on you following their rules and teachings, or you get burned at the stake (some times metaphorically, sometimes literally).
The thinking man is agnostic.

Theunissen
Saturday, March 10th, 2018, 04:19 AM
Theists can provide "several proofs for their positions"? In other words, theists can provide several "proofs" of the existence of the god in which they believe? Really? And what might these "proofs" be?
I'm astonished that you won't know about those Proofs, since they can be found so easily.

Examples:
Teleological Argument for the existence of God
Ontological Argument for the existence of God
First Cause argument / unmoved mover argument
Contingency argument
Argument from desire

SpearBrave
Saturday, March 10th, 2018, 07:19 AM
I agree, however religions are not content with you "just" believing in God. They are very keen on you following their rules and teachings, or you get burned at the stake (some times metaphorically, sometimes literally).
The thinking man is agnostic.Most organized religions do require you follow their doctrine. Often do you ever wonder that people think they and their lives are so "special" that god/s even care about them? Life goes on and on with or without god/s, the only thing it gives people some comfort in feeling somebody or something actually care about them?

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, March 10th, 2018, 08:13 AM
Abstract arguments are not proof! Where is the empirical evidence, i.e. proof, of the existence of any god or gods? Nowhere! When it comes to the existence of any god or gods, one needs hard, tangible empirical and conclusive proof. Your listed arguments are clearly not that! I am not convinced in the slightest of the existence of any god or gods. Show me the hard, tangible, irrefutable evidence! Show me any god or gods I can see with my own eyes! No! You cannot do that!

Theunissen
Saturday, March 10th, 2018, 09:24 AM
Nope, abstract arguments ARE Proof. Otherwise you could also throw Mathematics and Logic out of the window.
Demanding "empirical" evidence for non-material beings or concepts is a category mistake, hence a logical fallacy. But I doubt this matters too much to you, given that you have thrown out logic already. You are essentially a deaf man that demands visible proof for the existence of sound.
If you were consequent you'd also have to throw out the scientific method, since it is also based on abstract arguments and makes several assumptions. For instance an orderly created universe were matter obeys the laws of nature. It also presupposes logic and intelligibility of the physical world.

Jäger
Sunday, March 11th, 2018, 04:24 PM
Nope, abstract arguments ARE Proof. Otherwise you could also throw Mathematics and Logic out of the window.
I agree. I am glad you mentioned logic and mathematics, since their proof is only valid under a given premise. This premise can be false though, and even though the following proof is correct, the result will be false as well.
Especially, Mathematics relies on Axioms (= unprovable assumptions).

An example:

1. Teleological Argument for the existence of God: this assumes design (as per definition) in the universe, and thus the designer follows.
So what if I do not define "design" in the way theologists need it be to have it follow that the universe is a design?

Incidentally, this is religion: a bag of definitions which are defined for the purpose of being true. It is tautologism.
If I define a tea cup next to the moon as not measurable with current measuring instruments, and say that every 83652423th quantum jump results from this tea cup, I can bring you logical arguments and mathematical proof, that the tea cup must be there, and many many others.

Jäger
Friday, March 16th, 2018, 08:31 AM
While this is kinda funny, Theunissen did not respond to himself. I did. :D

Bernhard
Friday, March 16th, 2018, 11:59 AM
I agree. I am glad you mentioned logic and mathematics, since their proof is only valid under a given premise. This premise can be false though, and even though the following proof is correct, the result will be false as well.
Especially, Mathematics relies on Axioms (= unprovable assumptions).




This is an interesting point; as it can function as an argument against or in favour of a belief in God. Kant considered the universality of the sciences to follow from the fact that they work: they appear to be true. Without being able to verify what the sciences tell us (because we cannot know the 'Ding an sich') we can still consider them to be 'true'.
So I'm wondering what you, as an agnostic, think about his thoughts on the existence of God, which follows a similar line of reasoning. We cannot make any judgement about the existence of God, neither positive nor negative. But, given the nature of practical reason God has to exist in order for us to be ethical beings. The existence of God is a prerequisite for our ethical constitution. We have to assume the existence of God.
To me this seems to be an answer that isn't theist in the traditional sense, as it abandons the (indeed tautological) attempts at logically proving the existence of God that were common in the Middle Ages, but it also isn't agnostic, because it does give grounds for a belief in God, rather than a disbelief, even though these grounds are not ontologically positive statements.

Jäger
Sunday, March 18th, 2018, 11:22 AM
We cannot make any judgement about the existence of God, neither positive nor negative. But, given the nature of practical reason God has to exist in order for us to be ethical beings. The existence of God is a prerequisite for our ethical constitution. We have to assume the existence of God.
I do not follow why the existence of God is a prerequisite for our ethical constitution.

I haven't read Kant (fully), so you need to elaborate.

Bernhard
Monday, March 19th, 2018, 05:30 PM
The idea stems from Kant's deontological understanding of ethics, i.e. ethics as duty. Ethical rules (imperatives) apply categorically, therefore the 'categorical imperative' is the center of Kant's ethics (or practical reason). This means that to act ethically correct is not about achieving anything external to the ethical rule. We obey the rule because it is our duty to do so. We do not act according to certain ethical standards in order to get something in return, in order to be liked by other people or even in order to be happy (which was rather the concern of ancient Greek, mostly aristotelian ethics). We act according to ethical standards because we have to, because it is our moral duty to do so as human beings. It is right for its own sake.
Yet to live an ethically correct life is always a 'work in progress'. We are finite beings and we do not reach a moment where we are full ethical beings that are 100 percent just; where we reach a state of completion from which we can judge that we have acted right. Still, we act as if we will be, as if there were some position in eternity (the categorical imperative is not contingent after all) from where someone can judge our behaviour. This, says Kant, is God. God is postulated as a prerequisite for our ethical behaviour. In the same manner, there are two other postulates: Freedom and immortality (of the soul).

The reason I brought this up is mostly its methodological relevance, not so much the argument itself (which hopefully I've done justice in explaining). The end result is an affirmation of the existence of God, but not as an ontological statement which according to Kant is impossible. After all, in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason he described the limits of reason and scientific statements and showed any rational argument that is supposed to prove the existence of God to be in violation of the rules of reason, thus being irrational and non-scientific. To me that seems to be an agnostic conclusion: there is nothing to rationally say about the existence of God. But in Kant's Second Critique (his work on ethics) he goes on to postulate the existence of God as necessary for our constitution as ethical beings, like described above. So he goes beyond an agnostic position and adopts a theist position, without grounding this position in scientific or logical reasoning and without even claiming it to be an ontological statement at all.
Perhaps it would be a discussion of its own to what extent this is either a theist or still an agnostic position and of course the outcome of this discussion is completely dependent on whether one accepts Kant's ethical system. But again, the methodology behind it is an interesting third position in the debate between theists and atheists (or the agnostic, who is in between out of honesty).

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, May 1st, 2018, 08:55 AM
Mathematics and formal logic are clearly not abstractions as metaphysics are. Provide positive, empirically verifiable evidence as proof of any god's existence. Teleological & ontological "proofs" of god's existence? No. I am not convinced.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, May 19th, 2018, 04:29 PM
Mathematics are imaginary parametric criteria that humans use to make sense of the world. Many measurements are based on either Earth or Sun phenomena, but are not galactic or universal. There's no more absolute truth in disbelief than there is in belief. Different thresholds for validation suit different people. Nobody is neutrally objective.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Saturday, May 19th, 2018, 07:50 PM
Replace 'God' with "Housefather" or "Housemother" that turns on the light in the morning and switches it off in the evening :
Thus “God” created day and night.


Other replacements for the label “Monotheistic God” could be "Darwinism" , "Destiny" , "Doom" , "Decision" , "Winner" ,
"Unexplained" , "Fantasy" , "Hope" .

The polytheistic Pantheons are of course an image of the today's called Zodiac Constellations.
Take your pick who would have the most impressive cluster accumulation of visible stars until 5.5 brightness.

The Old Testament describes an ferrying from an overgod with sons to
something invisible living in the clouds.