iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:39 pmWe seem to construe the meaning of "context" here differently.
From my end, it revolves around any particular assessment of God and religion in discussions that revolve in turn around these factors:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path
For you it might be something other than these aspects of human "spirituality".
How one might define or deduce God and religion into existence is only of interest to me when those definitions and deductions are taken out into the world that we live and interact in. In particular when those interactions result in conflict.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:34 pm
I use context as it is defined in dictionaries.
Dictionary definitions are, up to a point, fine. But in regard to my own main interest in philosophy -- "how ought one to live in a world awash in both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?" -- I prefer that they be introduced to and intertwined in actual sets of circumstances.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:34 pm
1) Will you demonstrate no god and define spiritual path?
I won't because I can't. And I can't because how would I go about it? I presume that somehow, if "a God, the God" does in fact exist, He is intertwined in the understanding of existence itself. And where would any of us start in grasping that?
But then back to the argument that it is incumbent upon those who argue that something does in fact exist to provide evidence to substantiate it. And not the obligation of others to demonstrate that it does not.
As for a spiritual path, let's first go to the dictionary there too:
Spiritual:
1. relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
2. relating to religion or religious belief.
The path then being one of hundreds and hundreds that have been proposed down through the ages by one or another God or No God religious denomination.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:34 pm
2) My path has been full of experiences that I interpret. Is your path straight and narrow which doesn't get interpreted?
Interpretation is precisely my point. However, I root it subjectively/existentially/problematically in dasein. As encompassed in the OP of these threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
And my own path "here and now" is "fractured and fragmented" in regard to religion and morality.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:34 pm
3) Human existence is not profound. We exist.
Given what particular context? Are you arguing that "in general" this is applicable to all of us? If so, imagine traveling throughout Ukraine right now and arguing this.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:34 pm
4) You have certainties which I doubt.
Then note them. But note them in regard
to a particular set of circumstances. Or, sure, stay up in "intellectual clouds" with all the others here inclined to discuss things as one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".
But if that is your preference, I'd steer clear of me.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:34 pm
Questioning the existence of God does not make a person immoral.
Atheists know right from wrong and act accordingly.
I can accept atheists without conflict unless they challenge me.
Just another general description intellectual contraption to me. It might mean anything to anyone.