(July 21, 2020 at 4:50 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Doesn't  have to be classical stuff really.

That's true. I think the best stuff is the classical -- it's classical because it's great, not because it's old -- but we also need prerequisites to understand most of it. So reading moderns like Feser or David Bentley Hart goes a long way toward gaining access. 

Quote:Doesn't have to be perfect understanding obviosly, just this allows for a clearer understanding of what others believe even though there will still remain some misunderstandings. Feser himself is said, by some other types of Thomists, to have misunderstood some aspects of what Aquinas said in his writings. So the expectation certainly isn't that we will do better than him at understanding this stuff.

Yep, the debates continue. It's been helpful to me to read some of the arguments, particularly between the two I named above, to see what the issues are. All religions continue to hash things out and evolve.

I guess the application of the old stuff (e.g. Neoplatonism) by moderns like William Blake or Simone Weil is the most interesting to me. It's relevant to modern issues, cognizant of modern philosophers, and challenging. It's also way way beyond what most people talk about, either pro or con, when they talk about Christianity. Yet it is unthinkable without Christian tradition behind it. 

The various debates, modern versions, and disagreements remind me: One of the stupidest things that Dawkins ever said is that Christians can't tolerate uncertainty. He has the idea that all Christians believe in something they hold without doubt or unknowns, while science is comfortable saying "we don't know." He's casually erasing about half of Christian theology -- the apophatic, the cloud of unknowing, the inherent doubt that is a part of faith. The idea intrinsic to Christian thought that God is something that can't be known. 

And he seems unaware that while science-only people are comfortable saying "we don't know that particular thing yet," many of them have absolute certainty about their metaphysical commitments. That science is the Truth and in time will Reveal All.

(July 20, 2020 at 8:05 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Honestly some of the books to read for a beginning atheist should also include books written by religious thinkers regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

But thinkers from what religion? Maybe L Ron Hubbard or is it the religion that you consider to be the right one?

Scientology .... not sure it even qualifies as a cult .... let alone a religion. I'd prefer to use the word 'scam'.

And If you want a barefaced scam that leads to genuine enlightenment instead of loss of money---then go to Zen instead.

(July 22, 2020 at 8:43 am)Porcupine Wrote: Scientology .... not sure it even qualifies as a cult .... let alone a religion. I'd prefer to use the word 'scam'.

And If you want a barefaced scam that leads to genuine enlightenment instead of loss of money---then go to Zen instead.

You call Scientology a scam?! So how then would you call Catholicism which has amounts of money Scientology leaders can only dream of?

Also calling Scientology a cult is your opinion. Scientologists are very honest in their beliefs, as are ISKCON members, Hindus, and thousands of others.

Besides, Christianity was once considered to be only a cult but it grew, so there's no reason to dismiss something just because you consider it a cult.

I think I'm not looking for religious thinkers at all because I used to be a religious person, and have read a lot of religious books. I'm well aware of a lot of religious arguments and the way religious people think; I used to think in the same way.

That being said, I was very specifically a Christian. So I'm probably more open to reading things from Hindu, Buddist, Muslim, Jewish etc. thinkers than to things from Christian thinkers, simply because it's a slightly different way of seeing the world.

Cults are super interesting in their ridiculousness. It's akin to conspiracy theorists. But then again, all religions are sorta conspiracies - it's mostly about which ones are more widely-accepted in society.

(July 22, 2020 at 9:05 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: You call Scientology a scam?! So how then would you call Catholicism which has amounts of money Scientology leaders can only dream of?

The key difference is that the founder of Scientology was himself a phony scammer. I'm not sure that's the case with Christianity or Catholicism. It's founded upon scamming rather than merely containing a lot of scamming.

(July 22, 2020 at 12:43 pm)Porcupine Wrote:

(July 22, 2020 at 9:05 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: You call Scientology a scam?! So how then would you call Catholicism which has amounts of money Scientology leaders can only dream of?

The key difference is that the founder of Scientology was himself a phony scammer. I'm not sure that's the case with Christianity or Catholicism. It's founded upon scamming rather than merely containing a lot of scamming.

It's a hard thing to argue. Maybe Hubbard was insane just like Jesus or genuinely believed what he preached.

Besides, there is also evidence that Jesus cult was a scam for money since the beginning. Take Asclepius the healer and many healing stories attributed to him. The shrines attracted many customers and coveted many more. Healing stories functioned as effective propaganda, as they did for the new Jesus cult. For there were many who traveled about offering healing in his name, both Christians (1 Cor. 12:9) and non-Christians using Jesus' name as a magical charm (Acts 19:13-14, Mark 9:38).
Even Origen tells us that in his day the gospel episodes of healing and exorcism were recited verbatim as part of the healing or exorcism ritual.

And quoting Paul isn't a coincidence since you can see some of that scam in Paul like when he says he invented Jesus in a same way like Hubbard invented Xenu, and that is from voices "up above", like when Paul said Galatians 1:11-12   I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

And like Hubbard, Paul wants money 1 Corinthians 9:14 "In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it."

(July 22, 2020 at 2:45 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: It's a hard thing to argue. Maybe Hubbard was insane just like Jesus or genuinely believed what he preached.

Nah he was a clear scammer. In fact, he was so cocky that he could get away with his scam that he even admitted it. He knew that some people were so gullible his scam would still succeed anyway.

“You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”

― L. Ron Hubbard

Pure barefaced cockiness. He knew exactly what he was doing.

(July 22, 2020 at 3:57 pm)Porcupine Wrote:

(July 22, 2020 at 2:45 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: It's a hard thing to argue. Maybe Hubbard was insane just like Jesus or genuinely believed what he preached.

Nah he was a clear scammer. In fact, he was so cocky that he could get away with his scam that he even admitted it. He knew that some people were so gullible his scam would still succeed anyway.

“You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”

― L. Ron Hubbard

Pure barefaced cockiness. He knew exactly what he was doing.

The same way one can use to interpret that Christianity was a scam from the beginning.

(July 22, 2020 at 4:30 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: The same way one can use to interpret that Christianity was a scam from the beginning.

Not really.