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 iambiguous » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
My argument is that a "personal experience with God" is rooted largely in dasein. Which is rooted largely in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
This places God expressly in dasein. If God actually exists and is manifest in the world then you have misplaced God. It's like saying that gravity is "largely rooted in dasein". It's potentially a huge error.


On the contrary, my understanding of dasein relates to the distinction that I make between the world of either/or and the world of is/ought.

If one is able to demonstrate that God does in fact exist then any particular individual might still insist [subjectively] that God does not exist; but it can be demonstrated [objectively] that He does.

Gravity has been determined to in fact exist. Any number of empirical/material phenomena can only be explained [with astonishing precision] because it does exist. A detailed understanding of gravity is a crucial component of, among other things, NASA's space missions.

Still, that does not explain why it exist. Or why it exists as it does and not some other way. So, sure, a believer can then make the claim that this is God's doing.

And then we can speculate further regarding the extent to which God created gravity as He choose it to be or becasue that is the only way in which gravity can be created.

But, again, that is rather far afield from the reason that I created this thread.

My aim is always to be as far removed from a scholastic/theological assessment as we can possibly be.

phyllo wrote: But your error may be in placing God in the category of "scholastic" or "theological".


Okay, why don't you create a thread in which this distinction can be explored in depth. Otherwise on this thread we would have to focus the beam on why we choose the behaviors that we do [re before and after the grave] from the perspective of the religious scholar or the theologian.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to that so long as eventually they come around to my own aim here.

To wit:

Again, the whole point of this thread is to examine whatever particular experiences that any particular one of us have had with any particular God, and then to connect the dots existentially between before and after the grave.


phyllo wrote: Before you connect the dots between "before and after the grave", you need to examine the validity of your thoughts about God in general.


God in general. Or, as James S. Saint, might insist, the Real God in general. And, of course, the first order of business here is always to define our terms. And then to attach these definitions to a particular meaning that other words will then pile onto in order to substantiate one or another set of premises in one or another world of words.

Hell, we might never actually get around to Judgment Day at all, right?

I'm not restricting it at all.

That's why I asked folks to first describe what they mean by an "experience with God".


phyllo wrote: But you have already made up your mind.
You show as much in this post. "My argument is that a "personal experience with God" is rooted largely in dasein."

Do you comprehend what I'm saying here?


Yes, "here and now" I believe what I do about these relationships. But "there and then" I believed something entirely different. And down the road that may well change again.

But all I can keep noting is how this particular exchange is far removed from the point I had in mind in creating the thread.

Which then takes me back to the exchange we were having on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=192063&start=75

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
How about you?

What "here and now" do you believe your own fate to be "beyond"? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind -- the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true "in your head"? What is to be their own fate?
I don't know how many times I'm supposed to say "I don't know", "It's not my decision", "It's not under my control" .


Then we are back again to square one. Or, rather, to my square one.

This one: The gap between that which you have come existentially to believe is true in your head [here and now] regarding God and religion, and the ability to actually demonstrate why essentially all reasonable/rational men and women ought to believe the same.

Let alone how you would then connect that frame of mind to the frame of mind that revolves around particular moral and political issues you opine about in the government and society forum.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:07 pm

phyllo wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Personal experience of God...

When i believed in God, there were times after Mass when I would go outside. It was already dark. I would walk behind the church to the cemetery and just stand quietly looking up at the stars. Oh, how I love the stars. It didn't happen always but there were times when I looked up at them and because of my faith and my love of God, I would sometimes be drawn to my knees. I had no other choice but to simply place myself in God's presence and marvel at that exquisite view. There was no conversation...just a complete intimate moment (which might last a moment or minutes) between myself and my God. I realize that everything which I had become from the beginning of my life's journey was part and parcel of who it was who knelt there.

A real experience TO ME at that time but i cannot say that it would be real for everyone.
Iambig evaluates your experience as "largely rooted in dasein". Then he asks you to describe your experience. Why? Why bother describing it for him? He already knows(or thinks he knows) what it is.


I don't quite see "dasein" clearly but I intuit that what i experiences is "largely rooted in dasein.
As I said ~~ "I realize that everything which I had become from the beginning of my life's journey was part and parcel of who it was who knelt there."

Why bother describing it for him?

There was a time when I would not have because it was such an intimate spiritual moment to me...God, myself and the stars. Now it is just myself and the stars but I will admit that at times some residual memories might come to me which make me look down that precipice a little but then I back myself up. lol
We don't often want to share moments like that and there are people who would scoff at them. Why who knows? It doesn't take away from the experience itself but as Oughtist once asked me "Why throw your pearls before the swine, Arc" lol
That's not to say that when I remember those moments and the feelings which I am still capable of having from them - brain chemistry and all~~ they don't conjure up some nice transcendent emotions in me but they're just memories NOW.


He already knows(or thinks he knows) what it is

I'm not so sure how to answer this but if someone has had similar experiences, IF, it's plausible that he/she might have an idea of what the experience is or was.
As humans, don't we all share similar emotions and human experiences insofar as the God experience goes? more or less, that is? Dostoevsky realized this and so some of his passages where Alyosha was concerned in The Brothers Karamazov -- among many other writers.

"Consciousness is like a magical mystery show that we stage for ourselves inside our own heads" as Humphrey said in Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness". And it certainly is.

Of course, that doesn't make the experience any less real - at least real to us ourselves.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14431
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:51 pm

phyllo wrote:Iambig evaluates your experience as "largely rooted in dasein". Then he asks you to describe your experience. Why? Why bother describing it for him? He already knows(or thinks he knows) what it is.


No, Iambig probes the extent to which what one claims to have experienced can be demonstrated such that all reasonable and rational men and women are obligated to believe that the experience was genuine.

And then the extent to which the experience itself can be linked to the actual existence of a God, the God, My God.

Obviously: as a result of intense dreams or through the use of drugs or because of one or another affliction/disorder in the brain, we are able to imagine all sorts of experiences that turn out "in reality" to have unfolded only "in the head".

Now, sure, in church or around the dinner table or at the neighborhood bar, it might be enough to relate the experience that you had such that everyone nods their head and agrees it is a manifestation of God --- a "proof" of God's existence.

But in a philosophy venue we are expected to be considerably more evidentiary in connecting the dots between that which we believe or claim to know is true "in our head" and that which we are able to demonstrate that others ought to believe or claim to know is true "in their head".

Or so it seems to me.

It would be as though someone claimed to have had an experience in which they defied gravity yet was not required to demonstrate that in fact they had defied gravity.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:37 pm

No, Iambig probes the extent to which what one claims to have experienced can be demonstrated such that all reasonable and rational men and women are obligated to believe that the experience was genuine.

And then the extent to which the experience itself can be linked to the actual existence of a God, the God, My God.

Obviously: as a result of intense dreams or through the use of drugs or because of one or another affliction/disorder in the brain, we are able to imagine all sorts of experiences that turn out "in reality" to have unfolded only "in the head".

Now, sure, in church or around the dinner table or at the neighborhood bar, it might be enough to relate the experience that you had such that everyone nods their head and agrees it is a manifestation of God --- a "proof" of God's existence.

But in a philosophy venue we are expected to be considerably more evidentiary in connecting the dots between that which we believe or claim to know is true "in our head" and that which we are able to demonstrate that others ought to believe or claim to know is true "in their head".
You're sitting in an apartment or hospital room looking at a computer screen. The only evidence that you are going to get is a bunch of words on that screen.

You have already decided that all methods of reasoning and philosophical "tools" are inadequate. You have decided that all words are inadequate.

Yet, you keep asking for people to use words and arguments to demonstrate something to you. You keep asking them for more words which describe their experiences.

And when you get those words, you reject them as inadequate - in your head - intellectual contraptions.

This sums up Iambig : "I know that no argument can produce an adequate demonstration. Give me your new argument.
... No, you didn't convince me."

Is this Iambig's way of showing us that all methods of reasoning and all philosophical tools are failing? Maybe he thinks so but lots of people think that those tools and methods have done an adequate job. Instead, they think that Iambig subjectively rejecting these arguments because of his own inadequate thought processes.

He's one person passing judgement on all reasoning and he finds it lacking.

Okay, so what? It's been discussed more than enough for me. Moving on.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9694
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:36 pm

phyllo wrote:
You're sitting in an apartment or hospital room looking at a computer screen. The only evidence that you are going to get is a bunch of words on that screen.


Yes, we are all ensconced existentially in a particular set of circumstances "here and now" pertaining to the manner in which we pursue philosophy. Or to the manner in which we have or have not had experiences with God and religion.

But if we come into a philosophy venue and argue that, in fact, we have had an experience that led us to believe in the existence of a God, the God, My God, we are still able either to demonstrate that this experience provides evidence that would obligate others to believe in the existence of this God [and His "scriptured" morality], or we are not.

Nothing changes there, right?

phyllo wrote:You have already decided that all methods of reasoning and philosophical "tools" are inadequate. You have decided that all words are inadequate.

Yet, you keep asking for people to use words and arguments to demonstrate something to you. You keep asking them for more words which describe their experiences.

And when you get those words, you reject them as inadequate - in your head - intellectual contraptions.


No, I keep asking people to connect the dots between the "world of words" that they subscribe to "in their heads", and the world that we actually live in; such that the words they use in discussing their belief in God can be connected to something empirical, material, phenomenal, "out in the world" that we live in.

As an experience.

A world in which behaviors often come into conflict precisely because the words we use to embrace one particular God [or moral/political narrative/agenda] come into conflict with the words [and then deeds] of others.

Thus words here are always going to be only more or less "adequate" in performing this particular task, aren't they?

phyllo wrote:This sums up Iambig : "I know that no argument can produce an adequate demonstration. Give me your new argument.
... No, you didn't convince me."


Sure, if this is the way in which you construe our exchange. But an argument "in your head" regarding God and religion is either wholly in sync with the way in which the world is "in reality", or it's not. And you are either able to demonstrate that it is or you are not.

And then the next time you come upon a context in which your own moral values are at odds with the values of others, you can either successfully intertwine your belief about God -- the one "in your head" -- in the conflict to resolve it or you can't.

phyllo wrote:Is this Iambig's way of showing us that all methods of reasoning and all philosophical tools are failing? Maybe he thinks so but lots of people think that those tools and methods have done an adequate job. Instead, they think that Iambig subjectively rejecting these arguments because of his own inadequate thought processes.


And I agree that may well be the case. In fact, over and over again I note that my arguments here are just existential contraptions. No less so than others. In other words that, subjectively/subjunctively, I have manage to talk myself into believing that this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...is true. That it is reasonable to think this.

As this pertains to the manner in which I explore the question "how ought one to live?" as this pertains in turn to delving into the relationship between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and [re God and religion] the matter of immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

But then when I point out how this is also applicable to you, we are back to this:

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
How about you?

What "here and now" do you believe your own fate to be "beyond"? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind -- the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true "in your head"? What is to be their own fate?
I don't know how many times I'm supposed to say "I don't know", "It's not my decision", "It's not under my control" .


Then we are back again to square one. Or, rather, to my square one.

This one: The gap between that which you have come existentially to believe is true in your head [here and now] regarding God and religion, and the ability to actually demonstrate why essentially all reasonable/rational men and women ought to believe the same.

Let alone how you would then connect that frame of mind to the frame of mind that revolves around particular moral and political issues you opine about in the government and society forum.


But now once again you are "moving on".
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:23 pm

But now once again you are "moving on".
I have had enough. I'm not going to respond to your posts. Take that to mean whatever you want. I don't care.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9694
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:32 pm

phyllo wrote:
But now once again you are "moving on".
I have had enough. I'm not going to respond to your posts. Take that to mean whatever you want. I don't care.


That's your prerogative certainly.

But I should point out that you have chosen that particular path a number of times before. Only to come back into the fray.

Why?

God knows.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:35 pm

Stupidity.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9694
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:46 pm

phyllo wrote:Stupidity.


Either that or the growing concern that my frame of mind may well be applicable to you. That, in other words, over time, I may well succeed in yanking you down into that fucking dilemma with me.

Now, any number of objectivists have managed to convince themselves that this does in fact reflect the entirety of my motivation here. But it is not. Polemics aside, I am motivated far, far more by the hope that someday I really might come upon a frame of mind that does facilitate me in yanking myself up out of this godawful hole I have dug myself into.

And that's before the part about oblivion.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Mackerni » Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:54 am

iambiguous, I read your first post on this read and it sounds like you had to grapple with the same things I had to deal with when I was "choosing a faith" all those years ago, when I was around 12-13 years of age. I wanted an objective religion, but upon searching the Internet all I found were subjective opinions. I spent many days and nights seeking a faith that would "find me". I just got more confused as I studied the main religions. Then I came across skepticism, later on. There was something that rang true for me. "Not all religions can be right, but every religion can be wrong." After I saw that I pondered for awhile. I decided to become agnostic for a long time and later a Unitarian Universalist. UUs have very similar positions to the positive, objective things you say someone could develop. Unfortunately though UUism is also an extremely liberal-bias. Being a Republican/conservative and also becoming Unitarian doesn't really make any sense. So I left the church. I've developed my own theology based on what I considered subjective-objectivism (that is, looking at real things in a subjective way). I'm pretty happy with my own findings. If I wasn't trying to develop and cultivate my own religion I'd say I'm "spiritual but not religious". I have my beliefs. Beliefs that are supported by scientific inquiry.
"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"
User avatar
Mackerni
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:11 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:25 pm

Many years ago I saw a neat cartoon in which a large rat, holding the hand of a small rat, was walking down the street when the rats espied a huge picture of Mickey Mouse on a billboard on a wall. The small rat said, "Look, Ma, there's God!"
All human problems with some deity amount problems with themselves. If there were no problems with human justice, there would be no concept of an unjust God.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12208
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:35 pm

All human problems with some deity amount problems with themselves. If there were no problems with human justice, there would be no concept of an unjust God.
Then these people should not think about God or worry about God at all. They should solve their own problems.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9694
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:18 pm

Mackerni wrote:iambiguous, I read your first post on this read and it sounds like you had to grapple with the same things I had to deal with when I was "choosing a faith" all those years ago, when I was around 12-13 years of age. I wanted an objective religion, but upon searching the Internet all I found were subjective opinions. I spent many days and nights seeking a faith that would "find me". I just got more confused as I studied the main religions. Then I came across skepticism, later on. There was something that rang true for me. "Not all religions can be right, but every religion can be wrong." After I saw that I pondered for awhile. I decided to become agnostic for a long time and later a Unitarian Universalist. UUs have very similar positions to the positive, objective things you say someone could develop. Unfortunately though UUism is also an extremely liberal-bias. Being a Republican/conservative and also becoming Unitarian doesn't really make any sense. So I left the church. I've developed my own theology based on what I considered subjective-objectivism (that is, looking at real things in a subjective way). I'm pretty happy with my own findings. If I wasn't trying to develop and cultivate my own religion I'd say I'm "spiritual but not religious". I have my beliefs. Beliefs that are supported by scientific inquiry.


Yes, some years ago an old friend, Carol Mays, introduced me to the Unitarian Church here in Baltimore. And I agree: Republicans/conservatives were very, very few and very, very far between. Especially back then.

On the other hand, I left the church because I became immersed in radical politics on the left; and these folks basically clinched it for me: That, as Mac from our MACV at Song Be suggested, religion [and God] are just opiates for the masses. Among other things.

As for the beliefs that you hold now, I created this thread in order for those who do believe in one or another religion, to connect the dots between their religion on this side of the grave as it informs their understanding of religion on the other side of the grave.

In other words, when you choose to behave one way rather than another [with respect to one or another conflicting good], how is this intertwined [in your head] with what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave?

And how do you then demonstrate that what you do believe in your head "here and now" is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn?

Otherwise you are basically just saying "if you think about these things as I do then you are right, if not then you are wrong".

And that's objectivism.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:33 pm

Ierrellus wrote: Many years ago I saw a neat cartoon in which a large rat, holding the hand of a small rat, was walking down the street when the rats espied a huge picture of Mickey Mouse on a billboard on a wall. The small rat said, "Look, Ma, there's God!"


On the other hand, I think that we can all agree that objectively rats don't speak, and that Mickey Mouse is just a cartoon character. And not a God.

Ierrellus wrote: All human problems with some deity amount problems with themselves. If there were no problems with human justice, there would be no concept of an unjust God.


What of those problems that revolve around one of many possible "natural disasters" that have inflicted such cruelly brutal pain and suffering on millions upon millions upon millions of mere mortals [including children] over the years?

On insurance claims, they are called "acts of God".

As for justice, says who? in what context? from what point of view?

Which is why I ask folks like you to describe an instance of justice -- as this pertains to one or another conflicting good -- and to note how their own behaviors in relationship to a particular context reflect the most [or the only] description of true justice.

As this pertains to their understanding of God and religion.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:35 pm

You missed the fun of the cartoon and its suggestion of anthropomorphism if applied to humans. I really don't think a majority of rational people believe God is responsible for famine. flood, etc. "Act of God" is an insurance term used when no one can blame the disasters on humans.
Your entire thread is based on concepts of God as human. It is based on an untenable description of a God of the universe and does not reflect any such universal condition of love which could include God and Man. It reflects fear. which underscores man's interpretations of justice.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12208
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:47 pm

Ierrellus wrote:You missed the fun of the cartoon and its suggestion of anthropomorphism if applied to humans. I really don't think a majority of rational people believe God is responsible for famine. flood, etc. "Act of God" is an insurance term used when no one can blame the disasters on humans.


Oh, I get the joke. And the part where we too are made in God's image. But there is still the part [mine] where distinctions must be drawn between whatever particular references we make to God "in our head" [ironic or otherwise] and the extent to which we can demonstrate to others that what we believe or contend to know as true is that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe/know as true in turn.

Thus whether a majority of rational people believe that God is or is not responsible for creating a planet that manifests itself in any number of "natural disasters" [even extinction events], is something they can either show to be true objectively or they can't. Is it all just what they happen to believe "here and now" is true "in their heads".

Again, in a philosophy venue, the bottom line regarding substantive proof of what we do believe to be true must be considerably more rigorous than in other less exacting venues.

Or so it seems to me.

Ierrellus wrote:Your entire thread is based on concepts of God as human. It is based on an untenable description of a God of the universe and does not reflect any such universal condition of love which could include God and Man. It reflects fear. which underscores man's interpretations of justice.


No, the entirety of this thread is aimed at providing those who do have a belief in one or another rendition of God and religion, to connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side of it [re immortality and salvation] as it relates to their particular belief in God and religion.

Your argument here is [as always] hopelessly theoretical, conceptual, abstract. What on earth [with respect to love and justice and God] are you talking about?

As for "fear", sure, with oblivion right around the corner, there is plenty of that. But then that's the point of the thread. To draw out perspectives from others that might actually succeed in allaying that fear. Maybe even make it go away.

I'm just not able to do what you do: create all of these assumptions in your head about God and religion that do in fact manage to comfort and console you. Based on experiences that you are not able to convey to me.

Thus your assumptions are not realistic to me. All I know is that you believe them in your head and I don't believe them in mine.

So, for all practical purposes here and now -- God or No God -- you win.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:42 pm

I believe in a panendeistic-God, a God outside the Universe that is also impersonal. A God that in some direct or indirect way created the Universe, but does not meddle in the affairs of such.


Then another comes along and says...

I don't believe in a panendeistic-God, a God outside the Universe that is also impersonal. A God that in some direct or indirect way created the Universe, but does not meddle in the affairs of such.


And, then, as with all the others Gods, we are left groping about for some way in which to resolve the conflict.

In other words, aside from how one comes to conclude "in their head" that a God either does or does not exist, how on earth can they successfully convince others to conclude the same?

It's just that [as always] it seems far more reasonable that the obligation here rest on the shoulders of those who claim that a God does exist.

But even then [on this thread] I am willing to accept the existennce of God and skip right to the part where the dots are connected between God on this side of the grave and God on the other side of it.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Mackerni » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:25 pm

iambiguous wrote:Yes, some years ago an old friend, Carol Mays, introduced me to the Unitarian Church here in Baltimore. And I agree: Republicans/conservatives were very, very few and very, very far between. Especially back then.


My local Unitarian church had meetings with a socialist who wanted to run for my county executive's position. He lost. Baltimore is so liberal that if I went to a Unitarian church there I would probably start evaporating. (joke)

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, I left the church because I became immersed in radical politics on the left; and these folks basically clinched it for me: That, as Mac from our MACV at Song Be suggested, religion [and God] are just opiates for the masses. Among other things.


The radical left are not pragmatic nor do they have any moral principles, save for egalitarianism. They are idealistic and don't really see reality for what it is, only for what it could be.

iambiguous wrote:As for the beliefs that you hold now, I created this thread in order for those who do believe in one or another religion, to connect the dots between their religion on this side of the grave as it informs their understanding of religion on the other side of the grave.

In other words, when you choose to behave one way rather than another [with respect to one or another conflicting good], how is this intertwined [in your head] with what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave?


"This side of the grave"? That is so archaic. What you mean to ask is based on behavior. You are asking people how someone's religion affects their beliefs for their afterlife.

iambiguous wrote:And how do you then demonstrate that what you do believe in your head "here and now" is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn?

Otherwise you are basically just saying "if you think about these things as I do then you are right, if not then you are wrong".

And that's objectivism.


And don't you mean subjectivism? Subjective means that is how someone sees something - from their subjective view points. Objectivism is the opposite - they see things the way they objectively are. Of course, pure-objectivism nor pure-subjectivism fully exists anywhere.

There's billions of people with their own subjective opinions on ethics, beliefs, and rituals. There probably isn't two people in the world who would think exactly the same on every religious viewpoint. There aren't billions of religions, instead there are a few thousand, because when you start caring only about the central issue - nothing else really matters. For Christians it is, "do you believe in Christ"? For atheists it is, "do you believe in God?" And so on. Not everybody has to agree with one another on everything. If I even find one person who believes in my trinity of panendeism, henotheism, and theosis I would be very, very surprised.
"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"
User avatar
Mackerni
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:11 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:01 pm

Mackerni wrote:
iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, I left the church because I became immersed in radical politics on the left; and these folks basically clinched it for me: That, as Mac from our MACV at Song Be suggested, religion [and God] are just opiates for the masses. Among other things.


The radical left are not pragmatic nor do they have any moral principles, save for egalitarianism. They are idealistic and don't really see reality for what it is, only for what it could be.


Okay, choose a particular political conflict to illustrate your point. And, as for the radical right, their own idealism is almost always rooted in one or another denominational God, isn't it?

Either God or, for many Libertarians and Objectivists, one or another intellectual contraption -- political ideology -- rooted in Reason.

iambiguous wrote:As for the beliefs that you hold now, I created this thread in order for those who do believe in one or another religion, to connect the dots between their religion on this side of the grave as it informs their understanding of religion on the other side of the grave.

In other words, when you choose to behave one way rather than another [with respect to one or another conflicting good], how is this intertwined [in your head] with what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave?


Mackerni wrote:"This side of the grave"? That is so archaic. What you mean to ask is based on behavior. You are asking people how someone's religion affects their beliefs for their afterlife.


You either believe in a God, the God, my God or you don't. And, if you do, you are going to predicate the behaviors that you choose "here and now" on the manner in which you imagine God will judge them in order to maximize your chances of immortality and salvation "there and then".

If that isn't the fundamental function of religion "out in the world" what is it then?

iambiguous wrote:And how do you then demonstrate that what you do believe in your head "here and now" is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn?

Otherwise you are basically just saying "if you think about these things as I do then you are right, if not then you are wrong".

And that's objectivism.


Mackerni wrote:And don't you mean subjectivism? Subjective means that is how someone sees something - from their subjective view points. Objectivism is the opposite - they see things the way they objectively are. Of course, pure-objectivism nor pure-subjectivism fully exists anywhere.


With respect to God, each of us as subjects hold particular beliefs. In our heads. Now, to what extent are we able to demonstrate that what we do believe subjectively -- as "I" -- is in sync with the way the world is objectively. In other words, if another does not share your own beliefs about God you are able to demonstrate that he or she is not thinking rationally.

Mackerni wrote:There's billions of people with their own subjective opinions on ethics, beliefs, and rituals. There probably isn't two people in the world who would think exactly the same on every religious viewpoint. There aren't billions of religions, instead there are a few thousand, because when you start caring only about the central issue - nothing else really matters. For Christians it is, "do you believe in Christ"? For atheists it is, "do you believe in God?" And so on. Not everybody has to agree with one another on everything. If I even find one person who believes in my trinity of panendeism, henotheism, and theosis I would be very, very surprised.


Okay, but what does this really have to do with the point of the thread?

Your "trinity" is either intertwined in the behaviors that you choose here and now or it is not. And the behaviors that you choose here and now are either intertwined with the part about after you die -- there and then -- or they are not.

And you are either willing to discuss this with respect to that which I construe existentially to be conflicting goods or you are not.

After all there are plenty of threads at ILP where you can discuss God and religion...epistemologically?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Mackerni » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:Okay, choose a particular political conflict to illustrate your point. And, as for the radical right, their own idealism is almost always rooted in one or another denominational God, isn't it?

Either God or, for many Libertarians and Objectivists, one or another intellectual contraption -- political ideology -- rooted in Reason.


Moderates, center-left, center-right, minarchists, populists. They are less idealistic, more pragmatic, and they do have principles to stand by.

iambiguous wrote:You either believe in a God, the God, my God or you don't. And, if you do, you are going to predicate the behaviors that you choose "here and now" on the manner in which you imagine God will judge them in order to maximize your chances of immortality and salvation "there and then".

If that isn't the fundamental function of religion "out in the world" what is it then?


For me, religion is like guessing. I happen to make a very educated guess. I don't believe you will be saved through your faith or beliefs but instead through human-intervention. The reason why people do the things they do is to build extropy. We are able to record audio and visual, and impending technology will allow us to record more things. It is only a matter of time before the conscious part of humanity can be transported into the digital realm. And that is how we, along with everything else, will be saved.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but what does this really have to do with the point of the thread?

Your "trinity" is either intertwined in the behaviors that you choose here and now or it is not. And the behaviors that you choose here and now are either intertwined with the part about after you die -- there and then -- or they are not.

And you are either willing to discuss this with respect to that which I construe existentially to be conflicting goods or you are not.

After all there are plenty of threads at ILP where you can discuss God and religion...epistemologically?


Sorry, I can get riled up pretty easily. I like talking about my theology, beliefs, etc etc etc.
"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"
User avatar
Mackerni
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:11 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:56 pm

Mackerni wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, choose a particular political conflict to illustrate your point. And, as for the radical right, their own idealism is almost always rooted in one or another denominational God, isn't it?

Either God or, for many Libertarians and Objectivists, one or another intellectual contraption -- political ideology -- rooted in Reason.


Moderates, center-left, center-right, minarchists, populists. They are less idealistic, more pragmatic, and they do have principles to stand by.


Again, let's choose a particular conflicting good in order to explore this assessment "out in the world". Which specific principles pertaining to which specific behaviors pertaining to which specific religious narrative as this relates to the choices that one makes in confronting the reality of death.

What principles here do you hold dear?

Existentially as it were.

iambiguous wrote:You either believe in a God, the God, my God or you don't. And, if you do, you are going to predicate the behaviors that you choose "here and now" on the manner in which you imagine God will judge them in order to maximize your chances of immortality and salvation "there and then".

If that isn't the fundamental function of religion "out in the world" what is it then?


Mackerni wrote: For me, religion is like guessing. I happen to make a very educated guess. I don't believe you will be saved through your faith or beliefs but instead through human-intervention. The reason why people do the things they do is to build extropy. We are able to record audio and visual, and impending technology will allow us to record more things. It is only a matter of time before the conscious part of humanity can be transported into the digital realm. And that is how we, along with everything else, will be saved.


Again, no doubt that "in your head" you believe this. But how exactly would you go about demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same? And what does any of this have to do with the behaviors that you choose here and now in order to be "saved"? What on earth are you trying to convey to me here?

Also, why are the "educated guesses" of the conservatives more in sync with being saved [if that is the case] than the educated guesses of the liberals? In what particular context pertaining to what particular conflicting values/ideals?

In other words, sooner or later your analysis here is going to bump into the analyses of those who embrace conflicting moral, political and/or religious agendas. Then what? How are we to determine empirically who is more in sync with the actual objective world?

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but what does this really have to do with the point of the thread?

Your "trinity" is either intertwined in the behaviors that you choose here and now or it is not. And the behaviors that you choose here and now are either intertwined with the part about after you die -- there and then -- or they are not.

And you are either willing to discuss this with respect to that which I construe existentially to be conflicting goods or you are not.

After all there are plenty of threads at ILP where you can discuss God and religion...epistemologically?


Mackerni wrote: Sorry, I can get riled up pretty easily. I like talking about my theology, beliefs, etc etc etc.


I understand that. But this thread was created in order to bring those beliefs down out of the "theoretical" clouds and to explore the extent to which as a "world of words" they can be integrated into the actual behaviors that we choose relating to the parts before and after the grave relating to the parts about God and religion.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Mackerni » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:48 pm

When it comes to death, and seeing to it that one has a "good" afterlife, what I value the most from an outcome is how it will be played in the distant future. What most people don't realize is what they do or don't do today has bigger implications in the future than it does currently. My idea of the afterlife stems from the belief that the more freedom, benevolence, and wisdom someone has in their lifetime the less they will have to be modified to reach the same level of such three behaviors for the afterlife.

As far as showing empirically which side is correct and which is false, that is like trying to guess the future. My idea for humanity is to achieve deification with The Omniverse through a process known as Divine Selection. It is a very real possibility (nothing supernatural) that has a broad approach with the greatest number of goods possible. It could be impossible. I'm not saying it is, and if we are all meant to a slow heat decay and death then that will be my fate. But the difference between Heaven and my reality is that it can be shown empirically. The United Nations does world surveys every year and every year things continuously keep getting better for humans.

I think the point your trying to make at the start of this thread is that people can either be objective, open-minded and worldly about their view points or they can follow subjective, dogmatic, rigid-thinking. And to that means, what I'm trying to say is that my mind has been so open to the possibilities of the future and tomorrow that I've developed kind-of dogmatic thinking from that. I mean, I based all my opinions over a series of just two epiphanies. These epiphanies changed my life... To the point which I've developed my own system of subjective thinking based on it. But don't get me wrong, I never followed the crowd. I think it is possible to be both things at the same time, and by doing so not only do you speak what's on your mind but you speak for yourself as well.
"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"
User avatar
Mackerni
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:11 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:00 pm

Mackerni wrote: When it comes to death, and seeing to it that one has a "good" afterlife, what I value the most from an outcome is how it will be played in the distant future. What most people don't realize is what they do or don't do today has bigger implications in the future than it does currently. My idea of the afterlife stems from the belief that the more freedom, benevolence, and wisdom someone has in their lifetime the less they will have to be modified to reach the same level of such three behaviors for the afterlife.


Again, I don't doubt that you believe this is true. About the afterlife. About the part leading up to it.

Here and now. In your head.

It's your "idea" of the way things are now, of the things to come.

But why should it also be the idea of others too?

How can you take what you believe "in your head" "here and now" and demonstrate to all rational men and women why they too are obligated to believe the same? If they wish to be thought of as reasonable men and women.

Mackerni wrote: As far as showing empirically which side is correct and which is false, that is like trying to guess the future.


Yes, you "guess" what the future will be pertaining to the afterlife because your conclusions are based solely on a set of "theoretical", "conceptual" assumptions/premises that go around and around in circles. The conclusion must be true because the premises are "thought out" to be true. But where is the empirical/material/phenomenal evidence to substantiate it?

How is this really different from folks who claim to have had personal experiences with more traditional Gods but are unable to convey to folks like me what that experience actually consisted of---beyond what they believe about it "in their head?

Or those folks who argue that God must exist because it says so in the Bible; and it says so in the Bible because it is the word of God?

Mackerni wrote: My idea for humanity is to achieve deification with The Omniverse through a process known as Divine Selection. It is a very real possibility (nothing supernatural) that has a broad approach with the greatest number of goods possible. It could be impossible. I'm not saying it is, and if we are all meant to a slow heat decay and death then that will be my fate. But the difference between Heaven and my reality is that it can be shown empirically. The United Nations does world surveys every year and every year things continuously keep getting better for humans.


Until you are able to connect this particular assumption to the life that you actually live -- the behaviors that you choose as it relates to conflicting goods -- I have no idea what "on earth" you are trying to tell me.

And whatever the UN might profess about the world we live in there is still this part: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

So, tell me: how is your own understanding of God and religion intertwined in all of this?

Mackerni wrote: I think the point your trying to make at the start of this thread is that people can either be objective, open-minded and worldly about their view points or they can follow subjective, dogmatic, rigid-thinking. And to that means, what I'm trying to say is that my mind has been so open to the possibilities of the future and tomorrow that I've developed kind-of dogmatic thinking from that. I mean, I based all my opinions over a series of just two epiphanies. These epiphanies changed my life... To the point which I've developed my own system of subjective thinking based on it. But don't get me wrong, I never followed the crowd. I think it is possible to be both things at the same time, and by doing so not only do you speak what's on your mind but you speak for yourself as well.


All I can note here is this: that I have no clear[er] understanding at all as to how this is related to the thrust of the thread: an exploration into the existential relationship between the behaviors that you choose [and the moral narrative they are derived from] on this side of the grave, and what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave given the manner in which [here and now] you perceive God and religion.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong, only that you have failed to convince me that you are right.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:15 pm

Everyone is deserving if they want redemption. This Earth Realm is one corrupt Muther though. However what lies below is way worse and what rises above is way better. It's all about who you believe in, if you don't believe in yourself, how will you ever rise? If you don't believe in yourself, how will you ever believe in anything at all?


That folks are able to "think" themselves into believing something like this is not at all surprising. After all, how can it not but console them in this day and age. That "above all else" this is true.

And then it is a simple task "in your head" to link this to one or another religious font.

But, really, what does it mean here to "believe in your self" if your self revolves around, say, anarchy or fascism or communism or nihilism?

Ultimately this sort of thing -- this sort of thinking -- seems to be anchored in the assumption [the reassurance] that what you believe in is the embodiment of goodness. And if others would just think like you this would be a better world.

Along with the next world.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Mackerni » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:19 am

iambiguous wrote:Again, I don't doubt that you believe this is true. About the afterlife. About the part leading up to it.

Here and now. In your head.

It's your "idea" of the way things are now, of the things to come.

But why should it also be the idea of others too?

How can you take what you believe "in your head" "here and now" and demonstrate to all rational men and women why they too are obligated to believe the same? If they wish to be thought of as reasonable men and women.


Why should my view be the view of others too? It's the perfect balance between silly superstitions and utter nihilism. It doesn't place emphasis on a spiritual world, it places the emphasis on what you do here and now. Even if there really is no afterlife, striving to become a better person and doing better things because you *sincerely* believe that you will ultimately be affected by the outcome is a hell of a strong argument to make. Benevolence, wisdom, and freedom are three things that humans can obtain that nature cannot obtain by itself. If we try to change the world - and ourselves to fit those three things together, I know that regardless of the afterlife or not, we will be the ancestors to much greater things.

I also want to note, that if you believe that you will go to Heaven if are a good person and Hell if you are a bad person, you really have no stake in how things might turn out. Someone that believes that they are coming back to form one day will be much more focused on 'making Heaven on Earth' then 'Earth going to Heaven'.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, you "guess" what the future will be pertaining to the afterlife because your conclusions are based solely on a set of "theoretical", "conceptual" assumptions/premises that go around and around in circles. The conclusion must be true because the premises are "thought out" to be true. But where is the empirical/material/phenomenal evidence to substantiate it?

How is this really different from folks who claim to have had personal experiences with more traditional Gods but are unable to convey to folks like me what that experience actually consisted of---beyond what they believe about it "in their head?

Or those folks who argue that God must exist because it says so in the Bible; and it says so in the Bible because it is the word of God?


Aren't things that are benevolent, wise, and demonstrate a degree of freedom things that most people strive for? Most people want to be kind to other people - they go out of their way to be nice. Wisdom comes with age. Typically older people make better decisions. As well as freedom - the people with the most freedom tend to be the ones with the most money. Wealth is also a good measure of how successful someone is. I might have a lot of free time to do what I want because I'm disabled, but that doesn't make me actually free to do what I want ... I am extremely hindered by my lack of money.

Everything you experience comes from your head. Every religion, every person that lacks religion, made their choice of what is by their own mind. Why are you harping me on something so silly as, "well, nobody can take it seriously since it just comes from your head"? So did Christianity. So did Islam. So did every other religion. It all comes from your head.
There's no accurate way to measure those three things I laid out. What could be seen as benevolent in the past, like leucotomies, are now viewed as draconian, and medication, now viewed as benevolent will probably be viewed as draconian too once gene therapy accelerates. There isn't a single test to prove how "God-like" something is, yet there could be. My measure of divinity is not the only measure someone could give it. Someone might think their parents have divine powers, and someone might think that a star is just a star.

Spirituality is almost entirely subjective. It really all comes back to what you are thinking. To say that you know more than that is just a lie.

iambiguous wrote:Until you are able to connect this particular assumption to the life that you actually live -- the behaviors that you choose as it relates to conflicting goods -- I have no idea what "on earth" you are trying to tell me.

And whatever the UN might profess about the world we live in there is still this part: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

So, tell me: how is your own understanding of God and religion intertwined in all of this?


We can record audio, video, there's even holograms of dead people now. Look at our progress. Every single time we say something isn't possible, it happens. Look at human history, of everything we have now. Where are you from? How I'm I communicating with someone who probably doesn't live near me?

This progress is just a step towards unifying with the Omniverse. We manipulate nature to give it a purpose, to give it a cause. To sustain and make life comfortable for us. Humans have taken nature is in the process to replace with a noosphere.

Benevolence, wisdom, and freedom. The people that have the most of these qualities tend to live the most successful lives. Rich people get rich because they hired people to make the things they didn't have the time to make themselves. They are benevolent because they give an earning to people that might not have gotten a job. Many of these people are wiser than the rest of us, too. And they have freedom. But it is worth noting that technology accelerates to the point that what was expensive before is cheap now, and the standard of living is always increasing.

BTW, in two days someone making $2.50 a day could afford a smartphone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRww8-QuBw

Also, benevolence, wisdom, and freedom is the three things that deities and man share. A deity would be seen as omnibenevolent, omniscience, and have ultimate freedom at the same time. Although theoretically it could be noted that freedom and benevolence cannot co-exist with each other. By freedom I mean the ability to do what someone wants that is neither good or bad, that doesn't harm or help anyone. Things like picking which car to choose (that you own) and driving it.

iambiguous wrote:All I can note here is this: that I have no clear[er] understanding at all as to how this is related to the thrust of the thread: an exploration into the existential relationship between the behaviors that you choose [and the moral narrative they are derived from] on this side of the grave, and what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave given the manner in which [here and now] you perceive God and religion.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong, only that you have failed to convince me that you are right.


Fair enough. Truth be told, my seven characteristics might be wrong. People might value other things instead. Who knows? I've asked people before "if you were a God, would you do ultimately what is right for life, or would you do whatever you want?" Most people chose the later. Which I happen to disagree with! That to me is apathy, something that was originally a 'seven deadly sin' (replaced by sloth) and something that I do not see a real God to possess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not gnostic, I am very well an agnostic. I don't know any of things, but I believe in all my heart that it is true.

As far as what you have said in your original topic, I'm going to pose to you two scenarios - one true and one false.

Scenario 1 - Roe vs Wade is passed. Abortions are legal.

At least 600,000 people are scarified to this procedure. Yes, many of them would have ended up dead at one point anyway, and many more would have suffered if they were allowed to live.

Scenario 2 - Roe vs Wade doesn't happen. Abortions are illegal.

Many more people would have been born. Some of them would be highly successful people, some might have stood out from the crowd, went to college, got a full time job for most of their lives, paid taxes, raised families and would have carried out meaningful existences. Oh, and some clothes hangers might have gotten bloody.

So, do we sacrifice the good for the suffering of the misguided? I can tell you right now, that if there were no abortions in America, we would be in a better place right now. Locke's moral philosophy was championed by liberals at the time, and now liberals want to abort fetuses. I don't understand them.

Anyways, my point is, is that unless you have some magic eight ball that can tell you the truth about everything, you'll never truly know what is right and what is wrong. I'll made it a lot easier to understand with this analogy.

Before the US election you bet on predictit that Hillary is going to win against Trump. You bet 100 dollars.

The election occurs, and you lose 100 dollars you could have spent.

REVERSE scenario. You see the odds for Trump and see how much you can win if you bet on him, and you bid for Trump as President with the same 100 dollars.

The election still occurs, and you win much more than 100 dollars and go out to party with your friends with that. You go to Buffalo Wild Wings and order a lot of food with that money. Everybody around you is happy for a short time.

Unless you can always accurately predict the future, you'll never be able to be ethically/morally surprior to anyone else. Of course, there are people who are naturally bad and they choose to do bad things to produce the worst outcome, but I would have to say that this is in the minority, and most people live to survive and to help others.

I even have a mug that says, "SURVIVING AND HELPING PEOPLE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN AGENDA OR IDEOLOGY". I made it over four years ago and I still drink from it to this day; it's my favorite mug.

Of course, that mug completely negates my first argument that I made in this post...
"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"
User avatar
Mackerni
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron