Evolution of thought systems, myths and beliefs in history.

[Janic]

But blows, his attempt at creationist theory falls flat.

on the contrary, because if you had listened to the whole video, you would have realized it, but the philosophy and you, you must get on well together.

[Janic]

But blows, his attempt at creationist theory falls flat. That must be why he left without saying goodbye

You haven't watched or listened and you know (without that) if it fell or not flat. Strong dude!
For goodbye (provided that you know the meaning, what is not won!) There was a cut of the technique, as Thomas says, so here too you fall flat!

[Obamot]

Humor, xenophobia ... and religion
post399166.html # p399166

I answer here, because the harmless remark of Ahmed, deserves a modest but appropriate answer (which will be better possible to develop here then)

Contrary to the joke [...] on the Jew, where there like you said it, of course it would not be racism.
Anti-Jewish humor is not racism, unlike humor on Abdoul, [...] a very selective anti-racism.

[Exnihilo was right, I hesitated myself to make the remark that he made.]
Who? Where are you? To make a distinction between Israelites, Arabs, blacks or whoever it is already xenophobia. Or I explained to you that the three main monotheistic religions have the same Semitic origin! But should not be confused. You can be black Jewish, Asian Muslim or Arab Christian, religious segregation is not racism, but always xenophobia. And of course on the point that you raise, despite the fact that I quibble with the terminology, you are right somewhere. Yes indeed, there is no need to make a difference. It's obvious. On the other hand, it should not be overlooked that some claim to be Jewish Christians or Muslims but cannot be, so far removed from the legitimate aspirations of the groups to which they belong. Just to think about it, it is necessary to study the reported passages of the oral Torah, to understand that possessions are mutually exclusive for any self-respecting Jew. So these jokes are in reality often directed against imposters (who sometimes even are not aware of it) and one could say the same for the alleged Muslims of Daesh and other sectarian aberrations among Christians.

I do not see it as stingy, but as a well-advised clairvoyance which carefully balances the real costs against very intangible advantages before making the most rational decision possible: it is rather flattering for this character .. .

Obamot, STP, stop drown the fish in the Torah!

If I consider the (complex) questions of religions as private, it is not to dodge not to approach the subject, but to leave a field open to the “possible”!

It's funny to equate a religious doctrine with a river that said, even if finitude seems to have been dictated (the existence of a proclaimed god - ex nihilo for some with good reasons for others - I have a missing friend who had devoted his life to it ...) I think today that the question is elsewhere ...: the own reflection that individuals have on themselves (and with themselves) and as much as possible in relation to the universe around them, human relationships and the implication in social life, all these things which before they are resolved, leave little room for the religious question (essential to some, virtual for others and as much opinion as existence, it makes it a mass of data ), because on these reflections depend the survival of our species (and other species ...) And at the same time, not approaching it from a philosophical angle, does not give a basis for the rest! (and this is a daily reflection with the rising generations, many things are constantly questioned) so limiting that to god and steeple quarrels, seems to me rather inadequate.

The question of the existence of god is inclusive of philosophical reflection (and vice versa for those who believe in it)!

Except wanting to live in self-sufficiency in a retreat ... and if possible "not alone" ... (this is where the oxy bite ...)

[GuyGadebois]

The question of the existence of god is inclusive of philosophical reflection (and vice versa for those who believe in it)!

And also for those who do not believe. Indeed, the concept exists and you have to do WITH first to be able to do WITHOUT.

[Obamot]

The question of the existence of god is inclusive of philosophical reflection (and vice versa for those who believe in it)!

And also for those who do not believe. Indeed, the concept exists and you have to do WITH first to be able to do WITHOUT.

Who does not believe in what?

I didn't put it on, I didn't say what the “believe it”Deliberately! I would have closed the field of possibilities in a binary reasoning: having to choose between one side against the other without an intermediate option (“believe it or not, in what, philosophy? Religion? Inclusiveness?) Leave me the right of my thought, there is the essential (but I quibble your point stands ...

So I do "without" it allows me to do "with"

[GuyGadebois]

Who does not believe in what?

In God, that is a question!
Whether we "believe" in it, whether we "believe" in it or not. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

[Obamot]

We always come back to the eternal question of:
- having to prove something that does not exist, and ... of ...
- its “de facto” existence either ... (in the opposite case, since we have not been able to prove its existence by admitting that something resembling “it” exists)

It's not for nothing that “the combination” has worked for thousands of years
God exists at least in the hearts of the faithful!

Who does not believe in what?

In God, that is a question!
Whether we "believe" in it, whether we "believe" in it or not. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

I will not even speak in the presence of my a-vocat

[Obamot]

Jesus!

- “Any algorithm is a choice of values!”

Epigenetics: increasing human potential?

Do we know the future?

Change of civilization ...

Everything changes!

[humus]

It's not for nothing that “the combination” has worked for thousands of years
God exists at least in the hearts of the faithful!

How could finitude apprehend / experience infinity?
How could thought, which is in the register of time, apprehend / experience the eternal?
Some mystics have experiences of fusion with the whole, some turn it into a religion (oral or on paper).
The initial experience of the mystic is then found locked in thought and in time. It is no longer the experience.
The result can only be an idea of ​​God and will never be God.
The fear of our finitude, death, prompts us to believe in God, or in a continuation after death, it is reassuring (a little )
How could he have nothing after death, what meaning would life have? (none being an option )
If there is something eternal after death, how can that which is born of time (body, thought, personality) experience it?
To have a real experience of it, one would have to accept to die while alive, to die psychologically and not physically. To place the spirit in a register other than that of the body, the thought and the personality.

This is why this question of thinkers who want to apprehend / understand God is simply doomed to failure.
Thinking is not the right tool. She is the right tool up to a certain point, but everything outside of her field, out of time, is not accessible to her.
As long as one remains attached / identified with his thought, his personality, his body, the experience of God cannot take place.
The conclusion of the identified being being that God does not exist, or else he believes in an idea of ​​God without knowing what it is really about.
All this remains in the land of ideas and therefore of time (vs eternal)

[Janic]

humus
it's a pretty mishmash not devoid of a certain form of logic but inherited from the various "religious" and anti-religious cultures which can only express the invisible by using the visible, hence the naive representations that are made of this "unknown" beyond.
Moreover, the language used shows its limits at the level of belief since everyone uses this term but giving it very different meanings or applications. Their only common point is to believe because it is anchored in the culture of peoples, including those who say or pretend not to believe.