Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

  @heyman5525 2 hours ago Who says Im a Christian? This has nothing to do with the defense of any religion, but rather, the reasoning of, or from textual substance...whether it be an atheist, secular humanist, or religious person...and even if it be fictional or single subject texts. Dan is an epistemological nihilist...which is to say that no human being can derive applicable relevance from any textual material. Even athiests know the Bible, other religious texts, or even fictional works promotes certain perspectives on particular subjects...that people agree or disagree with. You're just trying to force your rehearsed and tailored arguments onto my statements, but like Dan, you need me to be something Im not...for your arguments to work. Dan isnt an expert on moral reasoning but atheists like Alex Oconnor definitely is. Alex can create a moral systematic and framework for society, but Dan cant, because he has gambled on the idea that everyone reads things as an anomalous authori...

Oral reading/discussion of this blog, so you can be spared having to read all of this:  Regarding:  RE: "The problem is that Dan wont debate or respond to Biblical experts, myself included, who disagree with him without appealing to dogmatism. He says the texts of the Bible are just texts with no meaning, but then he tells people to take the Bible seriously to see what is being said/expressed. He doesn't understand how apocalyptic prophesy is structured. He doesn't understand moral fluctuations of priority in the Old Testament as well as moral principle transitions of both Testaments and he doesn't believe you can get a worldview from the Bible because he is wholly ignorant on normative ethics in religious philosophy. He'd have to make the same claims against Hinduism too. Dan is gambling on the notion that every Christian is a dogmatist and he's lost that bet before." - Heyman5525 ----------------------------------------- As for " how apocalypti...

. Today, under this meme, someone said: "We were created. (but) No god exists." --- In reply, someone said; "The water is dry and fire is cold!" -- They were, in other words, calling out that comment as a nonsensical contradiction. However, that second person was, without realizing it, expressing a point of cultural conditioning. We have been conditioned by our culture to conflate the idea of a grand designer/creator ... with the title of "god". -So that we will feel as though we should (or must) *grant* the respectful title of "god" to a "creator" IF one exists. However, we could discover and obliterate that ingrained psychological and ideological reflex. Consider: The word "god" is an expression of: *reverent awe*. If someone refers to the idea of a creator-entity as a "god" or "God", they are attempting to say two things: 1. Such an entity exists. and 2. They feel some kind of way about it. If someone t...