What is a Jew

[Pindar]

A rapist, a cleptoman or a drug addict is in a mental state the governments you describe controls with force.....

Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.

For some, yes... But it's not seen as the religion itself by the broader western society.

I don't know what Muslim terrorist groups you are thinking of. Most I know of focus on political ends, not mental states.

So if I understand you correct. Aristotle created secular science. Secular science can not prove that Aristotle actually exist, which means we can't prove that he created secular science, which means that secular science don't exist.......

Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.

There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.

Well, I put more importance in historical records and I do believe that history is a social science. The historical records we have on Aristotle and Jesus, together with archeologial findings, shows that they both existed. We don't have any evidence that Aristotle actually created secular science or that Jesus is divine. For that we need to make more research, which nobody seems to be interested in doing, since Aristotle is an accepted fact and Jesus is a disputed fable (sorry for some soft sarcasm).......

Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.

I doubt that you have any problems to understand my approach and arguments in this matter. Even though it makes me happy that you acknowledge my position, even if you insist with your faith requirement.

I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say.

My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.

You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.

As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.

[bmolsson]

Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.

The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.

Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.

There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.

This logic seems a lot like mine....

Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.

Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.

I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say.

My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.

You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.

As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.

I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.




This logic seems a lot like mine....



Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.



I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth.

jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?

[Pindar]

jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?

bmolsson has transcended logic.

[bmolsson]

bmolsson has transcended logic.

Being a deity is not always easy......

[bmolsson]

jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?

Raise your hand before you speak......

[ICantSpellDawg]

Raise your hand before you speak......

What does this mean?
Is this some sort of childish reference to my childishness?

[bmolsson]

What does this mean?
Is this some sort of childish reference to my childishness?

Congratulations !!! You won a cokie...

[Pindar]

The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.

The imposition of civil duty doesn't compel a particular mental state. It does compel certain actions however.

This logic seems a lot like mine....

If you want to argue that there are old texts that speak of Deity then we have no issue. This is certainly the case. If you want argue that those texts constitute a proof of God's existence then I would disagree. This is the central issue with trying to argue that a "social science" appeal can somehow bring a definitive result to the question of Deity.

Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.

Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.

I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth.

Thanks for your understanding. I feel a little better knowing you care. Do I need to shave my head?

[bmolsson]

The imposition of civil duty doesn't compel a particular mental state. It does compel certain actions however.

Forced solidarity is a mental state which the evil state calls civil duty to make it sound better.
Actions are not enough, you are supposed to feel good when you do the duties as well. If you ever been drafted you would understand what I am saying.

If you want to argue that there are old texts that speak of Deity then we have no issue. This is certainly the case. If you want argue that those texts constitute a proof of God's existence then I would disagree. This is the central issue with trying to argue that a "social science" appeal can somehow bring a definitive result to the question of Deity.

I argue that the old texts prove that there are findings and sightings of the existance of something people in old times believe was a deity. The human behavior doesn't normally strife for a deity, hence the logic that something existed. Actually it doesn't prove that the assumed deity is a deity, but it is enough to build a theory on it.

Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.

And how is that ?

Thanks for your understanding. I feel a little better knowing you care. Do I need to shave my head?

Why ? My faith always told me you where bald ???

[Pindar]

Forced solidarity is a mental state which the evil state calls civil duty to make it sound better.
Actions are not enough, you are supposed to feel good when you do the duties as well. If you ever been drafted you would understand what I am saying.

There is nothing in the legal dicta of the U.S. or Indonesia I would wager that conflates civil duty with a required attitude. The IRS doesn't care if you like or dislike paying tax, as long as you do it.

I argue that the old texts prove that there are findings and sightings of the existance of something people in old times believe was a deity.

Why would you consider something written as a proof?

Are you arguing that belief equals existential reality meaning: I write about something then that something actually happened or exists?

The human behavior doesn't normally strife for a deity, hence the logic that something existed. Actually it doesn't prove that the assumed deity is a deity, but it is enough to build a theory on it.

Given that all cultures have been basically theistic this wouldn't seem to be the case. Atheism (with small exception) is a relatively new standard.

Posted by Pindar
Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.

And how is that ?

Theologians, paranormals, shaman etc.

Why ? My faith always told me you where bald ???

Your faith couldn't see under my hat?

I'm a surfer, surfers can't be bald: it's against the rules.

[bmolsson]

There is nothing in the legal dicta of the U.S. or Indonesia I would wager that conflates civil duty with a required attitude. The IRS doesn't care if you like or dislike paying tax, as long as you do it.

If you believe that blowing up large buildings is a good idea, you will be detained immediately, even if you have not blown any buildings up. Isn't that correct ?

There are many crimes that is set on your mental state, before any actual actions has been taken by you. All in the interest of the safety of the society.

Why would you consider something written as a proof?

Are you arguing that belief equals existential reality meaning: I write about something then that something actually happened or exists?

Not at all. Let us take one example:

If you have 1,000 people eating a cake. You then ask them to tell you what it taste like. The majority answer "strawberry".
Would you consider that the cake taste "strawberry" ?

Now take the same group and ask them to pray. You then ask them to tell you if God answered their prayers. If the majority answered, yes, God answered my prayer.
Would you consider that God exist ?

Given that all cultures have been basically theistic this wouldn't seem to be the case. Atheism (with small exception) is a relatively new standard.

With very few exceptions, all cultures are built around a powerstructure with somebody raised above others. This includes secular cultures.

Theologians, paranormals, shaman etc.

Yep, there you have a point.

Your faith couldn't see under my hat?

I'm a surfer, surfers can't be bald: it's against the rules.

Why would you need hair when surfing the net..... Just say you have it...

[Pindar]

If you believe that blowing up large buildings is a good idea, you will be detained immediately, even if you have not blown any buildings up. Isn't that correct ?

Not in the U.S.

Not at all. Let us take one example:

If you have 1,000 people eating a cake. You then ask them to tell you what it taste like. The majority answer "strawberry".
Would you consider that the cake taste "strawberry" ?

Now take the same group and ask them to pray. You then ask them to tell you if God answered their prayers. If the majority answered, yes, God answered my prayer.
Would you consider that God exist ?

So, your argument is if a 1000 people write God answered their prayer then God exists?

Now if another 1000 write God didn't answer their prayer does God suddenly cease to exist?

bmolsson: The human behavior doesn't normally strife for a deity...

Posted by Pindar
Given that all cultures have been basically theistic this wouldn't seem to be the case. Atheism (with small exception) is a relatively new standard.



With very few exceptions, all cultures are built around a powerstructure with somebody raised above others. This includes secular cultures.

Your reply doesn't really answer my point. I assume you agree that theism has been a general cultural trait.

Why would you need hair when surfing the net..... Just say you have it...

I surf waves baby. Some of my atheist buddies have been to Indonesia on surf trips: never got arrested or barred from the country interestingly enough.