Dis n Dat

I can respect that.

That question is irrelevant to you because you have a presupposition that dominates your epistemology and negates basic premises the OP is coming from. Thank you for your response.

I really appreciate your philosophical views on this matter. It's truly humbling. If I suggest a manner of thinking would you like to comment on it? 1. All religions as we know are man made institutions, just like you said. 2. All humans are the same. 3. But there was a creator. 4. And we don't know what this creator actually is ontologically, just like you said. 5. Time is not subject to this creator because he is outside creation. Time is only applicable to creation. 6. We thrive to be truthful and seek the guidance of the creator who knows better than us human beings, but we can only strive. Cheers.

Can you present the observed data on a perfect human being which God (you know should have been this way you think he should have been) should have created? Thanks.

Okay. So no one knows what this "perfect human being is". Correct? Then what is a human compared to when making claims about it's imperfections? Just a feeling? It's a slippery slope. Useless argument. It's an argument based on a made up premise. 1. God doesnt exist. 2. If he exists I know how he should be. It's nonsensical.

None of this is relevant to me. This is all a strawman effort. I questioned you on your claim and your claim only. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not on the questioner. It's absolutely simple. Have a great day.

You changed your statement with an edit. Now it's completely different. So could you point out where I made a "positive claim"? Thanks.

What position of mine did Bertrand Russell "deal with"? Which one have I stated here that Bertrand Russell "dealt with"? If it's on skepticism, that's absolutely not generalisation and burden of proof. Or is it on the mind, matter, or philosophisation? Please do give the specifics I asked for. Thanks.

No. It was your claim that I asked questions about. I did not make a claim. So that's not a burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on you Arete. Very good. So you agree that you can't prove it. In that case, why would you make a claim you cannot prove? Or is your claim misunderstood? Not at all. It depends on who made the claim. This is just a red herring. If you claim this thing about fairies, it is only fair to ask for some form evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

No. I am asking you for your evidence why you think all are human made if that's what you are thinking.

I am referring to the above statement you made. So if that does not mean all human belief systems are made by humans, what do you actually mean. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

The same logic you used. How do you know for sure that all belief systems are merely created by human beings? That's a universal statement.

It's not a red herring. I don't know who this Doctor Derp is but I am asking you directly. If you don't have the exact workings of a perfect human being, how could you say humans are flawed? If there is no measurement standard, what are you measuring against? Now this one is a red herring. Why do you think God if existing cannot have or should not have such amazing patience? Is that based on a "could have"? Your personal "could have"? What's your thesis on why it "could not" be as it is? And you assumed that I was assuming theists discussed evolution long ago and I told you "no, they actually did". So what do you have to say about that? Nice. Thanks.

Not necessarily. This using the same logic you and many others have used in this thread. Not at all. Now you are making an absolute statement. To make that kind of statement you have to have a model to dismiss all of them. So what's your model?

The person you spoke to at this wedding has used an illogical argument. This is not the type of argument that theologies generally make at a philosophical level. But also you should know that God can be your money, property, children and/or your own ego or desire. That too is a type of theology taught within theology. Even an atheist can fall into that. As you addressed a Christian who would not believe in Brahma, it is a model of God each would reject. True. But that does not prove anything but the fact that each are rejecting a model of God. Same as an atheist. Making the argument that a Christian rejects Brahma and vise versa is an attempt at a generalisation. It's used as if everyone is the same. You too, him too, thus both are in the same boat. Well, one of them could be right, thus in order to dismiss them one will have to explore each thoroughly. If not, it's also logically fallacious. Cheers.

Okay. No problem. So cannot all of them apply to your worldview as well?

None of that. The exact thing you said in your post that I responded to.

I understand what you are saying here, but what would be your idea exactly of a perfect human being? The "pinnacle" as said above? I understand that you don't need a God from your stance. But it could just be the way it is, with God. Not at all. Theists discussed evolution long long ago. It's not just conjecture, I can give you references if you wish. No problem.

Flawed humans? I don't think that's what's meant but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, what if there is no "fixing" or "flaw" and it's just the way it is while evolution is just part of it all? Could that be the reason theists have been discussing evolution since such a long long time ago?

The instrument of science

Your philosophy sounds just like Anselm and Juwaini. They are basically from two different world but have very similar philosophies, much like yours. It is also very similar to very traditional metaphysics like natural theology which is adopted by all kinds of people from the Hellenistic tradition, Christian tradition, Turkish tradition to middle eastern tradition. It also the foundational philosophy of Hindu thought.

Interesting. Does not that apply to you? If not, how? Thanks.

I would like to learn more about it. I have never had any clue about the Mahayana Buddhism. I mean, I have heard about it but only recently I learned a little about the most basic differences between Mahayana and Theravadha. It will be my honour to learn more about it from you. Maybe in a different thread. Yet, thank you very much. Again you are making it "I". Well that's just a projection. Nevertheless, this will be another rhetorical exchange so I respectfully withdraw from this particular one. Cheers and thanks.

It's not "My Definition". It's the common definition of atheism. Unless you can find a different scholar or someone who explains "atheism" as "disbelieving in other Gods not mine". Not loaded sentences, but the word "atheism". Thank you,

I was translating the word atheism directly. Not bringing in concepts upon concepts to a sentence. Hope you understand. Most atheists, if not all have a particular model of God when rejecting God. Of course. So do theists. This is the idea behind this global vs local atheism. This is not the definition or the meaning of atheism, but a modern day construct. In fact, just a few years. Local Atheism and Global atheism actually comes from Middle eastern scholarship where they defined theism differently, not atheism. In theism you can worship your children, your wealth or your own ego or Havah. That's another type of theism which they perceived as local theism. This is also called shirk or idolatry. Global theism is to deny all forms of deities but "The God". This definition is not atheism but monotheism. Then came the 21st century internet debate realm and they just a few years ago started using the word atheism for it. It's arbitrary. This monotheistic concept of God is not a western concept. It's eastern and middle eastern, and African. I have heard many people call it a western concept but it's not. All of these concepts are immigrations. As you probably know, even in Hinduism in chandogya upanishad God is called one, and of course Islam and Judaism are middle eastern theologies. Christianity too. So it's not a western concept. Nevertheless, I have not read anywhere of a transcendent consciousness in Buddhism. Is that Mahayana? Because I am pretty sure it is not in the Tipitaka. But if you do have a direct reference in the Tipitaka I am fully willing to read up. But if it's Mahayana, then it has too many philosophers and difficult to catch up. Thanks in advance. Somehow the topic has evolved swansont. Maybe it's beyond what you originally meant it to be. Anyway, I do agree with you that it's just phrasing. Sorry if I am merging different posts together. I am not used to posting in a forum like this so when I post two different comments I forget to press the Submit button and the second post ends up merging with the post. Not intentional @swansont @TheVat