on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:01 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What we believe is true about God or No God is what motivates us to behave as we do. Either in our own company or in the presense of others. And here the whole truth is beside the point when those behaviors precipitate actual consequences.

This is the actual consequences where there is a God.

35462 Deadly Attacks by Islamic Terrorists Since 911
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore if humanity can wean itself off the idea of God as real in the future, then there will be more [ZERO] deadly attacks such as the above.


In my view, what humanity must wean itself off of is objectivism. Look at how many deaths there have been as a result of political ideologies like fascism and Communism. And many of these folks were anything but religious. But they all share in common the belief that on this side of the grave there is a Real Me able to be in sync with The Right Thing to Do. It's just that some attribute to themselves the "intellectual courage" needed to accept that there is no beyond the grave for "I".

But my own particularly brutal pessimism is derived from the historical fact that so many others have died as a result of policies pursued by the nihilists. Those who wrap their own moral narrative around "show me the money". Those who own and operate the global economy.

And this can get really surreal in that some of them can argue for one or another God in sync with global capitalism; while many in the libertarian and Objectivist ranks rationalize this plunder in the name of Reason. Or the "virtue of selfishness".

Your views are too one-track minded.
I agree we should not pursue Objectivism as per Ayn Rand's theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

However we should not ignore Philosophical Objectivity, i.e.

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)


The optimal approach is to complement Philosophical Objectivity with Philosophical Subjectivity [especially intersubjectivity] up to the highest levels of considerations.
Such an approach will enable people like you to get out of that deep sh1thole you have dug for yourself.

Suggest you improve your breathing techniques to be a more natural breather and your world will light up with greater intensity with a wider vista.
Spirituality: How Long Can You Hold Your Breath?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194655
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:31 pm

In my view, what humanity must wean itself off of is objectivism. Look at how many deaths there have been as a result of political ideologies like fascism and Communism. And many of these folks were anything but religious. But they all share in common the belief that on this side of the grave there is a Real Me able to be in sync with The Right Thing to Do. It's just that some attribute to themselves the "intellectual courage" needed to accept that there is no beyond the grave for "I".

But my own particularly brutal pessimism is derived from the historical fact that so many others have died as a result of policies pursued by the nihilists. Those who wrap their own moral narrative around "show me the money". Those who own and operate the global economy.

And this can get really surreal in that some of them can argue for one or another God in sync with global capitalism; while many in the libertarian and Objectivist ranks rationalize this plunder in the name of Reason. Or the "virtue of selfishness".

Prismatic567 wrote:Your views are too one-track minded.


In what context though?

You tell me: With regard to particular human interactions out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially, what does it mean to have a "one-track mind"?

Prismatic567 wrote:I agree we should not pursue Objectivism as per Ayn Rand's theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

However we should not ignore Philosophical Objectivity, i.e.

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)


Again, this is all hopelessly abstract. We can all agree on certain facts regarding President Trump declaring a national emergency in order to build his wall on the border with Mexico. If the wall is actually built which philosophers would argue that its existence is not an objective fact? In this technical sense.

"Concepts"? "Propositions"? They need to be brought down to earth and implanted in actual circumstantial contexts.

And then the discussion shifts to whether [morally, politically] building the wall was the right thing to do. Here the objectivists [on both ends of the political spectrum] seem to embody this Real Me able to determine the answer to this question as either Yes or No.

Prismatic567 wrote:The optimal approach is to complement Philosophical Objectivity with Philosophical Subjectivity [especially intersubjectivity] up to the highest levels of considerations.
Such an approach will enable people like you to get out of that deep sh1thole you have dug for yourself.
[/quote]

What on earth does this mean? You pick the context. You pick the behaviors in conflicts. Then we can explore with considerably more substance what it means to have a "one-track mind".

And you can elaborate on why you are not in a Sh1thole/shithole yourself.

Either holding or not holding our breaths.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 29155
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:05 pm

Protestantism, and by extension Americanism and its 'American Individuality', did not escape God, or absolute order, but realized what 'god' was: a representation of human order, reflecting 'divine' absolute order.
The Protestant realized he could submit his will to this natural order directly, without a mitigating human factor.
It personalized the slavish surrender of 'ego' to natural order, so as to evade the shame.


First of course this is a discussion of God and religion that is entirely up in the clouds of abstraction. You might be a Protestant but how on earth do you interpret the meaning of this as either relevant or not relevant to your own life?

Secondly, it is a frame of mind anchored to idealism. It is a "thought up" understanding of Protestantism/Americanism that makes certain "intellectual" assumptions about them.

This as opposed to, say, the analysis of someone like Karl Marx. From the perspective of a Communist, Protestantism is to be understood largely in terms of the historical shift from feudalism and all previous political economies, to mercantilism and capitalism.

God and religion go from being that which is entirely oriented toward the next world, to that in which they become increasingly more embedded in this world.

In other words, Christianity is made to be more compatible with capitalism. The greater the individual prospers the greater God is pleased.

A lot more readily discernable than the intellectual claptrap above.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 29155
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:42 pm

Who has more control of our thinking; God or Satan?


Okay, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that both do in fact exist.

So: Which one is said by many of the faithful to be omnipotent?

End of story?

Unless God has chosen to allow Satan to have greater control over our thinking, what other explanation is there if in fact Satan comes out on top here.

It always comes back to God's will. From Satan to theodicy, there is just no getting around His responsibility.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 29155
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users