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 » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:57 pm

Mackerni wrote:
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.


And that works fine until what you do here and now comes into conflict with what another wants you [or expects you] to do instead. Sometimes God and religion is the culprit then, sometimes is it something else. That's when it all comes to revolve around one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes right or democracy [moderation, negotiation, compromise].

Mackerni wrote: 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.


Yes, but there are always conflicting renditions of lofty rhetoric like this. But when you bring it all down to earth and plug it into an issue like abortion you're still back again to the three alternatives above.

The point of this thread though is to allow those who do believe in God and religion to flesh that out existentially with respect to the relationship [as they understand it] between before and after the grave.

Mackerni wrote: 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.


Well, there's what you believe and there's what God believes. And, on Judgment Day, this is [presumably] considerably more up to Him. So the stakes couldn't be higher for the believer before the grave. You gamble that what you have chosen to do is in sync with God's Will.

Mackerni wrote: 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'.


And how then does that not largely revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy -- the existential relationship between them -- out in a particular world?

And you are still back to bridging the gap between what you believe "in your head" about this and how you can demonstrate that, in turn, all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe the same.

In other words, back to this...

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?


Mackerni wrote: 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.


Still, all of this is basically abstract. It is another of what I construe to be Satyr's "general descriptions" of human interactions.

But then when we bring it all down to earth and note the manner in which, say, liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, fascists and communists etc., construe the meaning of "wisdom" or "justice", the conflicts generally soar.

With or without God and religion.

Mackerni wrote: 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.


Yes, but these heads are out in particular worlds historically, culturally, experientially. They become the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Thus I explore that crucial relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world" as this is experienced existentially by each and every unique individual. And then I ask the philosophers, the scientists, the theologians etc., to note that which is true for all of us and that which is not.

It's just that in this thread the focus is on the relationship between what you choose here and now as that relates to what you imagine your fate to be there and then. In other words, beyond the grave.

Mackerni wrote: There's no accurate way to measure those three things I laid out.


Exactly. But that doesn't make the part about before and after the grave go away. However one imagines this relationship they are still going to choose things "here and now" that come into conflict with what others choose instead. Then back again to right makes might, might makes right, or democracy and the rule of law. Or, as is more likely, a complex and murky intertwining of all three.

Mackerni wrote: 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.


I basically agree. I root this in dasein. In the life that we live existentially. In contingency, chance and change. In a world of conflicting goods whereby those with the most power able able to enforce their own agendas.

Mackerni wrote: 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.


Come on, if this sort of thing were able to be demonstrated beyond all doubt, isn't that all we would be talking about? Actual irrefutable proof of life after death?! And cite a few examples of the things that you thought weren't possible that happened anyway. How extraordinary were they?

Mackerni wrote: 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.


Yes, you believe this "in your head". Now demonstrate the manner in which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe it in turn. And intertwine "progress" "purpose" and "cause" as this relates to "nature" as this relates to an issue like abortion. In other words, in a manner such that your narrative is not but one more set of political prejudices [assumptions, premises].

And then [from my perspective] back up into the stratosphere of lofty rhetoric:

Mackerni wrote: 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.


I can only come back to this: What on earth does this mean? Regarding what particular context construed from what particular conflicting points of view?

Picking a car and driving it? Is this not always situated in a particular social, political and economic context?

To wit:

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.


Mackerni wrote: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!


It still ever and always comes down here to demonstrating to others that what you believe "here and now" "in your head" as true, is what they are obligated to believe in turn -- if they wish to be construed in turn as reasonable and virtuous people.

Yes, you may well be correct but have just failed to convince me. Beyond that [given the nature of these relationships] what else is there?

Mackerni wrote: 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.


One narrative/agenda entirely true, the other entirely false? Of course that is precisely what those on the other end of the political spectrum will argue in regards to their own political assumptions.

Basically, what you are arguing is that women who do become pregnant and don't want to be are morally obligated to give birth in order to be in sync with your own political premises. Or they are forced to give birth in order to avoid being charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, punished accordingly. Even if the pregnancy was as a result of a failed contraceptive or a rape.

Even if, in being forced to give birth, women can never hope to sustain a social, political and economic equality with men as this pertains to any number of opportunities in life.
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 Ecmandu » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:57 pm

A little known story...

The Buddha was asked whether God existed or not by a bunch of people one day...

He answered with the arrow parable.

"If you are shot by an arrow, you don't ask who shot it or why, you pull it out or you will die"
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

Ecmandu's second rule: calculate the set of your argument upon itself before you argue!

Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption or extraneous drama cause all human ills - that was the most important thing you'll ever read in your life. - Ecmandu

The biggest problem in life... That more than one person wants the same thing! Solve this, and you have beaten the demon of life!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Mackerni » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:26 pm

iambiguous, (nice name btw), I started to write a huge-ass reply in regard to the concerns you had regarding various topics. But it kind of boiled down to something: you somehow think that I think people should be obligated to believe the same things I do.

Yes, it's true that I believe that abortions should be illegal in every case, but, I do realize that if that occurs the demand for coat-hangers is going to go up.

And regarding my own beliefs, yes, I'd like people to believe the same things. I might not be able to demonstrate with a 100% certainty that they are accurate. But those are my beliefs. Yes, I would like to create a religion and I know that creating a religion and being agnostic is virtually impossible, nonetheless, I still hold true to my convictions.

I don't think that other religions can do the same that you ask of me - to demonstrate an objective certainty that this is the only way. But the thing is, the effectiveness of religion isn't influenced by their beliefs - they are influenced by what they do with those beliefs. If you believe in God but all you do is eat cheetos and drink mountain dew, you'll be a lot less productive than the atheist who volunteers at a homeless shelter and does chores his parents can't do. Conviction is alright, but without the proper rituals they are meaningless.

I mean, if someone believed that being free, wise, and good were noble things to do - they would in turn be different people - if they truly believed it. if they believed that what they'll do in this life will affect their outcome in their returning to form later on, then that's a good thing, because it gives them something to work towards to.

I sincerely believe that people should save money for their afterlife. Hell, put it in a 401K, into stocks and bonds, AFTER they die and when they come back to life they won't be poor. I believe in a Will of Conscious, and it's implications - to write a Will based on what your afterlife should be. A Will of Conscious could be anything from an afterlife from the Singularity, to an afterlife on another planet.

I'm not saying everybody should do this. I'm not saying there is an obligation. But this is how I view reality. I sincerely believe the people ought to write their Will of Conscious but I also believe that people will return later on regardless. All I'm trying to do is bridge the gap between now and then. Between death and life.

There's nothing that says that people should do this. Nor should there be. Most Americans believe when they die they'll go to Heaven. It's a quaint idea. One I disagree with. There are many Christians who say I'll burn in Hell for not being like them, but there's no obligation to be like them since, in liberal democracies, there is freedom of religion.

Ecmandu wrote:A little known story...

The Buddha was asked whether God existed or not by a bunch of people one day...

He answered with the arrow parable.

"If you are shot by an arrow, you don't ask who shot it or why, you pull it out or you will die"


In this case, is God the arrow? Or is God the person who shot the arrow, and the arrow is faith?
"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 Arcturus Descending » Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:25 pm

Mackerni,


Yes, it's true that I believe that abortions should be illegal in every case, but, I do realize that if that occurs the demand for coat-hangers is going to go up.


Every case? What about in the case where it has been determined beyond a doubt that there would be so much brain damage to the child that though this child could live for years, the quality of its life would be nihil or almost nihil? Can't walk, can't talk, cannot feed him/her -self, can't experience music in a way which would satisfy? Takes such seizures that are capable of lasting for minutes?

Where is the human value and compassion and right reason in allowing that child to live or for the parents to endure such pain day after day? Even if the parents felt such an attachment thinking it was based on love, what of the child?
Could you honestly say that you yourself would want to live under those circumstance, if you had a say in it?

You have to go beyond your personal absolutist belief into the sane kind of compassion and empathy and rightful thinking.
Of course, that's kind of a drastic scenario but it is nevertheless a "real" story too.
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 Mackerni » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:14 pm

Okay. Two things.

(1) If the mother will die during the pregnancy, or during child birth, and the child is not expected to live a long and healthy life, then abort the child. This is going to make me sound like a crazy right-wing kook, but if the mother's life is in the balance and the child is expected to live most of his or her life in health, then you have to sacrifice the mother. I see it this way: the mother has already lived many of her years, while the child hasn't. All the years that the mother already lived would be given to the child, PLUS all the years that come after that.

(2) (For some reason, your scenario reminds me of Eraserhead...) If the child is suffering more so than enjoying life, AND there is absolutely NO way for his or her life to become better in the immediate future, then yeah, kill him or her. But you have to realize, as an atheist and someone that doesn't believe in a supernatural afterlife, that once that person dies, it's the end. No feelings, no emotion, nothing. It is nothing.

I want to go ahead and state that I'm against the death penalty and the war of terror, so I'm not some kind of right-wing lunatic. Also, I'm actually pretty authoritarian/populist about children in general, because I think the government ought to do more to help children. Mandated healthcare for all children, make sure all children get enough to eat, etc. And less testing! Children do not need to be tested as much as they are. The only comprehensive test a child should be forced to do is the SAT/ACT. I'm also against (most of) Common Core.
"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 Ecmandu » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:17 am

In Buddhist thought, the arrow represents our karma, more accurately, our fetters.
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

Ecmandu's second rule: calculate the set of your argument upon itself before you argue!

Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption or extraneous drama cause all human ills - that was the most important thing you'll ever read in your life. - Ecmandu

The biggest problem in life... That more than one person wants the same thing! Solve this, and you have beaten the demon of life!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:12 pm

Mackerni wrote: iambiguous, (nice name btw), I started to write a huge-ass reply in regard to the concerns you had regarding various topics. But it kind of boiled down to something: you somehow think that I think people should be obligated to believe the same things I do.


With respect to God and religion [and the relationship between them before and after the grave], my frame of mind always revolves around this: the extent to which whatever you profess to believe is true in your head is that which you believe in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to believe. Why? Because you are able to demonstrate this to them in some capacity.

Thus one can argue that all rational men and women are obligated to believe that Pope Francis is the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. That he is 80 years old, was born in Argentina, resides in the Vatican etc.

These are all facts. At least to the extent that they can be demonstrated as facts.

But if one shifts the conversation to the moral narrative of this man and his church, what here can be demonstrated to in fact be true? What here are all rational men and women obligated to believe?

Mackerni wrote: Yes, it's true that I believe that abortions should be illegal in every case, but, I do realize that if that occurs the demand for coat-hangers is going to go up.


So, basically, from my frame of mind, you have taken an existential leap to a particular political prejudice. And this is rooted in dasein.

Now, are you arguing that if others believe abortion should be available on demand that they are necessarily wrong? Are you insisting that the "good" that you embrace here necessarily outweighs the "good" that the pro-choice folks embrace?

If so, how do you go about demonstrating it?

In other words, pertaining to abortion, what is your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


Or, in other words, what philosophical argument can you make such that all reasonable/rational, moral/virtuous men and women would be obligated to believe that all abortions ought to be made illegal.

Mackerni wrote: And regarding my own beliefs, yes, I'd like people to believe the same things. I might not be able to demonstrate with a 100% certainty that they are accurate. But those are my beliefs. Yes, I would like to create a religion and I know that creating a religion and being agnostic is virtually impossible, nonetheless, I still hold true to my convictions.


Bingo.

In other words, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks just like you exist. They all make the same claim regarding moral and political values that are, well, hopelessly conflicted and contradictory.

And, whatever they might choose to do, they are going to come into conflict "out in the world". Then what? Well, then they all dump their own particular theological, philosophical, moral, political assumptions on you and ask you to choose: Are you one of us or one of them?

But: either to each other or to me they insist that they and only they have pinned Human Reality here to the mat.

Which I then subsume psychologically in this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


How then [pertaining to abortion] is this not applicable to you?

Mackerni wrote: I mean, if someone believed that being free, wise, and good were noble things to do - they would in turn be different people - if they truly believed it. if they believed that what they'll do in this life will affect their outcome in their returning to form later on, then that's a good thing, because it gives them something to work towards to.


Clearly. But how is "what they work for" any less subsumed in the manner in which I describe the "psychology of objectivism" above. It is in fact having something to work towards that drives the objectivists. In my view, what it is -- denominationally, ideologically, deontologically etc. -- is of less importance than that they do believe it does exist "in their head"; and that they are in sync with it in being one of the "good people".

Mackerni wrote: I sincerely believe that people should save money for their afterlife. Hell, put it in a 401K, into stocks and bonds, AFTER they die and when they come back to life they won't be poor. I believe in a Will of Conscious, and it's implications - to write a Will based on what your afterlife should be. A Will of Conscious could be anything from an afterlife from the Singularity, to an afterlife on another planet.


And I sincerely believe that you sincerely believe this. But I am also sincere in suggesting that you have in no way, shape or form succeeded in actually demonstrating [empirically, phenomenally, existentially] that all reasonably folks ought to believe it too.

But...

Mackerni wrote: I'm not saying everybody should do this. I'm not saying there is an obligation. But this is how I view reality. I sincerely believe the people ought to write their Will of Conscious but I also believe that people will return later on regardless. All I'm trying to do is bridge the gap between now and then. Between death and life.


In that case [from my frame of mind] you are acknowledging that you are right from your side while others are right from their side. You all make assumptions about what is true regarding human interactions [before and after the grave] and if these premises are true then the conclusions necessarily follow.

As though this in an of itself makes it so.

Mackerni wrote: There's nothing that says that people should do this. Nor should there be. Most Americans believe when they die they'll go to Heaven. It's a quaint idea. One I disagree with. There are many Christians who say I'll burn in Hell for not being like them, but there's no obligation to be like them since, in liberal democracies, there is freedom of religion.


Bottom line [mine]: I really don't see how you have been any more successful than all the others in demonstrating that what you believe [here and now] is that which all other reasonable men and women are obligated to believe.

Instead, as with them [in my view], you have created this sense of reality in your head [an intellectual contraption, a world of words] such that you are able to ground "I" in it; such that it gives you a foundation enabling you to feel comforted and consoled in the face of what really may well be an essentially absurd and meaningless 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 » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:43 pm

You keep using the word obligated like it is a cancer.

I have written somethings down regarding divinity. I think most people would occur that God should be wise, benevolent, free, and aware. Likewise, God also should be one, eternal, ubiquitous, and stable. If God is not all of these things, it could not necessarily be called a God. If a God was everything but benevolent, it could be sinister. If the God is not wise, it shalt not know what to do in stressful situations. If God is not aware of itself - like the Omniverse - it cannot have the other qualities that make it alive. You take away one of these key elements of divinity and God no longer is divine. I want to stress that the Bible does a lot to focus on Yahweh and Jesus, but Yahweh is a vengeful mofo and I would never worship a God like that. To me, the Bible teaches a God that is very malevolent, is pitiful, jealous, and definitely not stable. Yet billions of people believe in this God. How can that be?

As far as abortions go, I just need one example...

1] My mom got pregnant with me on a one-night stand. My father's other girlfriend threaten to kill my mom and I while she was still pregnant. My mom was a waitress at the time. She disconnected all ties with my biological father and raised me alone, and started to go to school again after I was born. She became an environmental scientist in part because she wanted a better life for both of us, and she makes a lot of money now. If she would just get me aborted after all the hardship she faced after my conception, she probably wouldn't have the strength to do what she did to make her life better. I tell this to myself every time I ask something from my mom.

I don't necessarily view agnosticism and creating a religion to be completely contradictory. I mean, the Unitarian Universalists have a religion ... of agnostic thought ... and they are agnostics ... *face slap*

My stepdad is Republican/conservative, although he believes abortion is okay for rape and incest. My mom is a Republican/moderate and is pro-choice. Not many people have my same view on abortion. I don't think I've ever met someone who believed killing the mother to save the child is a good thing. My views on things do not necessarily come from any influential outside forces. Yes, I did listen to a lot of conservative talk radio, but they didn't bring up abortion very often because they know their side lost! My views on abortion are similar to my views on theosis and The Omniverse. I took what I understood - and without any outside help - I formulated my own opinions. I'm actually kind of proud of that.

It sounds like in your next argument you are trying to say that subjective thoughts are more important that objective goals. That - someone believing they are right is more important than an objective goal or purity. Which I completely disagree with.

... next paragraph ... yes, I know I don't have any proof of that, but neither does any other religion for their claims. You gotta have faith. The faith of most religions is a God that I don't believe exists, whereas my faith comes from the foundations of humankind and understanding. Big difference there!

Absurd and meaningless world? Maybe of objective certainty and meaning. But that's what makes life so unique and exceptional - everybody has their own experiences. Maybe the largest dissociation I have with creating a religion is that I don't want everybody to believe what I believe! That would be putting too many eggs in one basket. When you talk to one person, candidly, about their beliefs and experiences, you get to open their world - but as soon as you make an -ism (including Exaltism), you make meaningless definitions and draw borders around yourself and others.

Religion doesn't work if the person doesn't change. It doesn't work if it entices violence, bigotry, and hatred. The value of religion isn't given to what is true or not, it's given to how someone will behave because of his or her faith. There are many Christians who use the "good parts" of the Bible (first Corinthians 13:3-8 anyone) and also awful parts of the Bible many of them skip. As well, there are people who bomb abortion clinics and commit acts of terrorism because of Christianity. It's all subjective! There are good Christian sects, and awful ones too!

I guess what I have to admit myself, is that Unitarian Universalism doesn't affect me, Christianity makes me feel bad inside, and Exaltism is a intellectual playground, but offers no way to connect with people, same with Terasem. But I have to admit, based off of my own view of religion on the last paragraph, that the Baha'i Faith is probably the best religion for me. I feel like a better person, and I behave much better as well. But something always draws me towards the Terasem/Exaltist transhumanist intellectual paradigm cesspool. You know, in the other thread, Wendy told me to be myself. If I can be better than who I am right now, then that it what I should do, right?

I'm getting sidetracked, my mistake...
"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 Mar 02, 2017 9:46 pm

Mackerni wrote: You keep using the word obligated like it is a cancer.


I use it in the manner in which I construe the narrative of all religious, moral and political objectivists: my way or the highway.

One of us or one of them.

And, if you follow the history of our own species, it can indeed be construed as a kind of social, political and economic cancer. Think of all those who, over the centuries, were able to achieve some measure of power...enough [for a time] to actually enforce their own dogmatic agenda.

Many with the best of all intentions.

Mackerni wrote: I have written somethings down regarding divinity. I think most people would occur that God should be wise, benevolent, free, and aware. Likewise, God also should be one, eternal, ubiquitous, and stable. If God is not all of these things, it could not necessarily be called a God. If a God was everything but benevolent, it could be sinister. If the God is not wise, it shalt not know what to do in stressful situations. If God is not aware of itself - like the Omniverse - it cannot have the other qualities that make it alive. You take away one of these key elements of divinity and God no longer is divine. I want to stress that the Bible does a lot to focus on Yahweh and Jesus, but Yahweh is a vengeful mofo and I would never worship a God like that. To me, the Bible teaches a God that is very malevolent, is pitiful, jealous, and definitely not stable. Yet billions of people believe in this God. How can that be?


Again: Which particular God in which particular context pertaining to which particular conflicting goods?

Mackerni wrote: As far as abortions go, I just need one example...

1] My mom got pregnant with me on a one-night stand. My father's other girlfriend threaten to kill my mom and I while she was still pregnant. My mom was a waitress at the time. She disconnected all ties with my biological father and raised me alone, and started to go to school again after I was born. She became an environmental scientist in part because she wanted a better life for both of us, and she makes a lot of money now. If she would just get me aborted after all the hardship she faced after my conception, she probably wouldn't have the strength to do what she did to make her life better. I tell this to myself every time I ask something from my mom.


What is this but a classic example of the manner in which I construe the existential [problematic] relationship between "I" and any particular value judgment?

My point then is this: aside from the manner in which existentially you and I came to view abortion as a moral issue, is there an argument that a theologian, a philosopher or a scientist can construct allowing for all reasonal/virtuous men and women to embrace the obligation of all reasonable/virtuous men and women?

Maybe. All I can note is that "here and now" I do not believe that there is. In other words, "in my head". But I am certainly not able to demonstrate that "out in the world" this is true for all of us.

Mackerni wrote: My stepdad is Republican/conservative, although he believes abortion is okay for rape and incest. My mom is a Republican/moderate and is pro-choice. Not many people have my same view on abortion. I don't think I've ever met someone who believed killing the mother to save the child is a good thing. My views on things do not necessarily come from any influential outside forces. Yes, I did listen to a lot of conservative talk radio, but they didn't bring up abortion very often because they know their side lost! My views on abortion are similar to my views on theosis and The Omniverse. I took what I understood - and without any outside help - I formulated my own opinions. I'm actually kind of proud of that.


You tell me: Which part of this is not in sync with the manner in which I construe value judgments as embedded/embodied in dasein?

In my view, you have created this polemic -- this "world of words" -- in your head in order to fit all of the disparate peices out in the world together. "I" then becomes wholly grounded in the manner in which you have "thought this up".

You have "faith" that your own particular intellectual assessment intertwining God and abortion is equal to the claim of all others. Why? Because none of you have any hard evidence -- proof -- that would permit you to argue that all rational/ethical folks are obligated to believe the same.

Mackerni wrote: It sounds like in your next argument you are trying to say that subjective thoughts are more important that objective goals. That - someone believing they are right is more important than an objective goal or purity. Which I completely disagree with.


No, you misconstrue me. I am not embracing subjectivism over objectivism. I am arguing that there are things that any particular individual believes to be true [as a subject] "in his head", and there things that he is either able to demonstrate as true objectively for all of us or is not.

Here is how I proposed to understand this distinction above:

...one can argue that all rational men and women are obligated to believe that Pope Francis is the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. That he is 80 years old, was born in Argentina, resides in the Vatican etc.

These are all facts. At least to the extent that they can be demonstrated as facts.

But if one shifts the conversation to the moral narrative of this man and his church, what here can be demonstrated to in fact be true? What here are all rational men and women obligated to believe?


Mackerni wrote: Maybe the largest dissociation I have with creating a religion is that I don't want everybody to believe what I believe!


But this brings me back to the reason that I created this thread: to explore the relationship between what you believe about God and religion as this becomes relevant to the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as this becomes relevant to that which you anticipate your fate to be on the other side of it.

If you don't want [or require] anyone to believe what you do then basically it all comes down to anyone believing anything that they happen to believe. And then in doing anything that they believe is in sync with that.

But: What happens when this results in conflicting goods, conflicting behaviors? Conflicts that result in dire consequences....for someone.

You can insist that...

Mackerni wrote: Religion doesn't work if the person doesn't change. It doesn't work if it entices violence, bigotry, and hatred. The value of religion isn't given to what is true or not, it's given to how someone will behave because of his or her faith.


...but what on earth does this mean when we get right down to the nitty-gritty of conflicting goods? To abort or not to abort...to execute or not execute...to eat or not to eat animal flesh...to own or not to own guns...to be or not to be a homosexual.

And we know how religion often does work here.
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 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:10 am

iambiguous wrote:I use it in the manner in which I construe the narrative of all religious, moral and political objectivists: my way or the highway.

One of us or one of them.

And, if you follow the history of our own species, it can indeed be construed as a kind of social, political and economic cancer. Think of all those who, over the centuries, were able to achieve some measure of power...enough [for a time] to actually enforce their own dogmatic agenda.

Many with the best of all intentions.


I also think that kind of mentality doesn't work for most scenarios. Everything is subjective based on context. If you killed someone who was trying to rob you should you be persecuted the same way as someone who killed someone because he was robbing them? Of course not.

iambiguous wrote:Again: Which particular God in which particular context pertaining to which particular conflicting goods?


1) My God doesn't exist yet.

2) Yahweh. http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

iambiguous wrote:What is this but a classic example of the manner in which I construe the existential [problematic] relationship between "I" and any particular value judgment?

My point then is this: aside from the manner in which existentially you and I came to view abortion as a moral issue, is there an argument that a theologian, a philosopher or a scientist can construct allowing for all reasonal/virtuous men and women to embrace the obligation of all reasonable/virtuous men and women?

Maybe. All I can note is that "here and now" I do not believe that there is. In other words, "in my head". But I am certainly not able to demonstrate that "out in the world" this is true for all of us.


Do you want to know my real stance on abortion? It's very complicated. I believe that immortality comes from a lack of foresight. I also believe that good foresight comes from good hindsight. My point is: if there was a crystal ball that could show you both possibilities, with abortion or any other decision, you would take the option that did the most good, would you not? And that's how I base my morality. People cannot look into a crystal ball and know exactly what is going to happen - but if they sincerely believe that aborting their fetus would outweigh the cost of the life, then yes, the abortion should occur.

I'll give you two examples using the same person.

1) Girl gets knocked up at 18. She can't afford to raise the baby and go to college at the same time. She works as a waitress for most of her life as a single mother and lives in a poor neighborhood.

2) Same girl gets knocked up at 18. She gets an abortion. She goes to college, get's a bachelor's degree, and meets her significant other while writing her thesis for her master's. They both get high paying jobs, live in an upscale neighborhood, and have three children together.

Option two sounds a lot better, doesn't it?

Consider option 3.

3) Same girl gets knocked up at 18. She takes a year off to live with her parents as she gives childbirth. She sends it to an abortion agency and go through the process for an open adoption. After birth, she goes to college, get's a bachelor's degree ... and you know the rest.

There's roughly 4 million child births every year and 500 thousand abortions. Of course there are going to be times where having a child - even for nine months - is stressful for the mother. Being adopted isn't easy either. There really isn't a correct solution to this.

... I went from completely pro-life to almost completely pro-choice in the matter of a few posts...

iambiguous wrote:You tell me: Which part of this is not in sync with the manner in which I construe value judgments as embedded/embodied in dasein?

In my view, you have created this polemic -- this "world of words" -- in your head in order to fit all of the disparate peices out in the world together. "I" then becomes wholly grounded in the manner in which you have "thought this up".

You have "faith" that your own particular intellectual assessment intertwining God and abortion is equal to the claim of all others. Why? Because none of you have any hard evidence -- proof -- that would permit you to argue that all rational/ethical folks are obligated to believe the same.


Again, you are right. I don't have a magic eight ball that actually works. I can't tell you if something is objectively right or wrong, because again, it's all about context. Why do you keep trying to make me look bad? I keep agreeing with your assessments. Look at the shit that PewDiePie had to go through because people took him out of context.

In fact, I will go one step further - there's a lot of people who believe that human existence is harmful to the planet, and they want us - you and I - to commit suicide so we can save it. If humans never existed, and there wasn't malls, streets, and stores everywhere, how many plants, trees and wildlife would exist right now because of that? We're a self-interested species. But I see the value in chopping trees down to build houses. I see value in malls, stores, and streets. They give us goods and help us survive. Who is right on their assessment? Nobody! Because we solely give value to things ourselves.

iambiguous wrote:No, you misconstrue me. I am not embracing subjectivism over objectivism. I am arguing that there are things that any particular individual believes to be true [as a subject] "in his head", and there things that he is either able to demonstrate as true objectively for all of us or is not.

Here is how I proposed to understand this distinction above:

...one can argue that all rational men and women are obligated to believe that Pope Francis is the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. That he is 80 years old, was born in Argentina, resides in the Vatican etc.

These are all facts. At least to the extent that they can be demonstrated as facts.

But if one shifts the conversation to the moral narrative of this man and his church, what here can be demonstrated to in fact be true? What here are all rational men and women obligated to believe?


Religion's biggest factor of "how well it works" is demonstrated by how the person behaves in accordance to the values of his or her church. Christians that bomb abortion clinics and tells everybody that "God hates fags" probably shouldn't be Christian. But Christians that give back, go on mission trips and build schools, and give people comfort for the departed are pretty good Christians I.M.P.O.V. But this can be attributed to anything. If meditating helps you, you should meditate. If planting trees helps you, you should plant trees. Do what makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. (Isn't that a Libertarian ideal?)

iambiguous wrote:But this brings me back to the reason that I created this thread: to explore the relationship between what you believe about God and religion as this becomes relevant to the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as this becomes relevant to that which you anticipate your fate to be on the other side of it.

If you don't want [or require] anyone to believe what you do then basically it all comes down to anyone believing anything that they happen to believe. And then in doing anything that they believe is in sync with that.

But: What happens when this results in conflicting goods, conflicting behaviors? Conflicts that result in dire consequences....for someone.

You can insist that...


And there are going to be conflicts. Imagine if you may, I win the lottery. 100 Million. And I decide to spend half of it right away. I get a nice house, etc. 25 Million goes to stock in Berkshire Hathaway. The rest I save for later. I marry someone, and have two kids. Then, when I'm about to die, I decide to take my remaining money and put it into a trust fund for MYSELF and give my children no money in my Will. Do you think they would be fine with that? Of course not.

There's always going to be conflicts, until we can accurately predict the future. Imagine, in the future, the money I saved helps me come back to life quicker, but then after another hundred years or so money becomes obsolete - and everybody is resurrected and saving the money was utterly a waste of time (and money)!

The only way objective morality can exist is if someone knows the best way to get the best possible outcome every time. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

iambiguous wrote:...but what on earth does this mean when we get right down to the nitty-gritty of conflicting goods? To abort or not to abort...to execute or not execute...to eat or not to eat animal flesh...to own or not to own guns...to be or not to be a homosexual.

And we know how religion often does work here.


Are you familiar with eschatology? I made a question for my religious quiz based on it. I did some research and discovered that many eastern religions paint a bleak future for their religions - many bad things will happen according to them. Everybody will "fall" to the disease of other faiths. On the other hand, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Baha'i, Christianity, and Islam all essentially have the same views - everybody will become one of them, and all we be saved and reconciled.

I see three possible outcomes for religion in general.

(1) Everybody will believe the same thing because it has been proven fact.

(2) Everybody will believe in many different religions because thoughts become disperse.

or

(3) Religion will become synonymous with mythology and nobody will have a religion.

If 1 happens, less conflicts happens. If 2 happens, more conflicts happen. And if 3 happens, less conflicts happen. I think currently 2 and 3 are happening at the same time, although I think 3 will edge out. In the larger scheme though, I think religious faith will be replaced with scientific theories. The very nature of reality will be hotly debated amongst the brightest minds, and it's already happening. Most scientists believe in the theory of evolution - but the little things regarding it are still debated. If 3 happens then 4 will happen too...

(4) Scientific inquiry will splinter and many people will have their own opinions regarding nature and fate.

And if this happens, more conflicts will ensue.

There's a reason why some people will pay a lot to get their fortune read to them.
"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 pilgrim-seeker_tom » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:37 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:Every case?


Arc ...are you familiar with the story of Little Margaret of Castello 1287–1320

Her parents were aristocrats ... Little Margaret was so ugly and so deformed apparently her father couldn't even look at her ... her parents refused to give her a name ... they did everything possible ... including at age 6 imprisoning her in a "tomb" like room for 13 years ... to prevent their social network discovering her existence. They abandoned her at age 20 ... at least they had the human decency not to murder her.

She has been beatified by the Catholic Church, and is considered the patron saint of the poor, disabled and the unwanted.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:05 am

Seems to me philosophers in antiquity addressed the more profound questions ... at some point in history philosophers arbitrarily established glass floors and glass ceilings ... no doubt in response to the growing shitload of contradictions in world religions.

Let me repeat St Augustine's question once again ...

but I myself cannot grasp the totality of what I am



For me ... philosophers need to shatter the man-made glass floor and glass ceiling and return to mature discussion/debate ... argument if necessary ... the question:

What is the totality of what I am?
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:00 pm

Mackerni wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I use it in the manner in which I construe the narrative of all religious, moral and political objectivists: my way or the highway.

One of us or one of them.

And, if you follow the history of our own species, it can indeed be construed as a kind of social, political and economic cancer. Think of all those who, over the centuries, were able to achieve some measure of power...enough [for a time] to actually enforce their own dogmatic agenda.

Many with the best of all intentions.


I also think that kind of mentality doesn't work for most scenarios. Everything is subjective based on context. If you killed someone who was trying to rob you should you be persecuted the same way as someone who killed someone because he was robbing them? Of course not.


Yes, but the objectivists -- religious or secular -- will generally argue that whatever you do, it can be determined to be either the right thing or the wrong thing to do.

I don't have that option.

And the sociopaths will argue that, on the contrary, if killing you is in my best interest [for whatever reason] that makes it the right thing to do.

This in my view will always the most disturbing rendition of nihilism. It is why so many people freaked out when Nietzsche came on the scene. It's all about God. No God, no transcendent font able to finally pin down or differentiate Right from Wrong, Good from Evil.

Mackerni wrote: Do you want to know my real stance on abortion? It's very complicated. I believe that immortality comes from a lack of foresight. I also believe that good foresight comes from good hindsight. My point is: if there was a crystal ball that could show you both possibilities, with abortion or any other decision, you would take the option that did the most good, would you not? And that's how I base my morality. People cannot look into a crystal ball and know exactly what is going to happen - but if they sincerely believe that aborting their fetus would outweigh the cost of the life, then yes, the abortion should occur.


My point however revolves less around what someone claims to believe is true and more around that which he can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true. In other words, to what extent are your views on abortion rooted [as mine are] in dasein?

Mackerni wrote: 1) Girl gets knocked up at 18. She can't afford to raise the baby and go to college at the same time. She works as a waitress for most of her life as a single mother and lives in a poor neighborhood.

2) Same girl gets knocked up at 18. She gets an abortion. She goes to college, get's a bachelor's degree, and meets her significant other while writing her thesis for her master's. They both get high paying jobs, live in an upscale neighborhood, and have three children together.


Both options reflect the embodiment of dasein. The way in which our values are rooted in the lives that we live. And if the first rendition of the woman reflects the fact she was forced to give birth because abortion is illegal where she lives, that is not construed as a "good" thing to her. And if the second rendition of her is able to choose the abortion that isn't construed as "good" for the dead baby.

Now, is there a philosophical argument here that makes these conflicted goods go away?


Mackerni wrote: 3) Same girl gets knocked up at 18. She takes a year off to live with her parents as she gives childbirth. She sends it to an abortion agency and go through the process for an open adoption. After birth, she goes to college, get's a bachelor's degree ... and you know the rest.


Yes, there may well be women who have this as an option. But what of those who don't? There are after all any number of conflicting historical and cultural contexts in which this will be construed as only more or less applicable.

Mackerni wrote: .. I went from completely pro-life to almost completely pro-choice in the matter of a few posts...


Yes, and, given a new experience or being introduced to a new point of view, you may well change your mind again.

I, on the other hand, being "stuck" in my dilemma above don't have that option. Not until someone can convince me that one or the other option is necessarily more rational and more virtuous. That such a distinction can in fact be made.

You tell me: Which part of this is not in sync with the manner in which I construe value judgments as embedded/embodied in dasein?

In my view, you have created this polemic -- this "world of words" -- in your head in order to fit all of the disparate peices out in the world together. "I" then becomes wholly grounded in the manner in which you have "thought this up".

You have "faith" that your own particular intellectual assessment intertwining God and abortion is equal to the claim of all others. Why? Because none of you have any hard evidence -- proof -- that would permit you to argue that all rational/ethical folks are obligated to believe the same.


Mackerni wrote: Again, you are right. I don't have a magic eight ball that actually works. I can't tell you if something is objectively right or wrong, because again, it's all about context. Why do you keep trying to make me look bad? I keep agreeing with your assessments. Look at the shit that PewDiePie had to go through because people took him out of context.


My aim on this thread is to explore the relationship -- the existential relationship -- between faith in God and behaviors that those who claim to embody this faith choose. As this relates to their moral narrative on this side of the grave and an understanding of their fate on the other side of it.

It's not about making others look bad; it's about nudging them to bring the part "in my head" out into the world of actual human interactions. In particular when they come into conflict with others who possess different renditions 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 iambiguous » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:40 pm

If people "knew" that there is a God, they would be even more freaked out than they are now. Some people would not be able to fart without checking with God about the "correct" direction.


Imagine that...

People know that God exists because God makes the choice to become visible. Even hardcore atheists have to admit that God does in fact exist because God does in fact make that an undeniable truth.

And, depending on whose God it actually turns out to be, the truth about farting and all other behaviors would finally be pinned to the mat. The problematic relationship between before and after the grave would be succinctly resolved.

In other words, that transcendent Font that folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant speculated about would have become manifest. You want immortality, salvation, divine Justice? Well, this is what you have to do.

Even all the haggling here about the nature of dasein would finally be put to rest.

In the interim however we are still on our own.
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 Mar 09, 2017 7:08 pm

And, depending on whose God it actually turns out to be, the truth about farting and all other behaviors would finally be pinned to the mat. The problematic relationship between before and after the grave would be succinctly resolved.

In other words, that transcendent Font that folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant speculated about would have become manifest. You want immortality, salvation, divine Justice? Well, this is what you have to do.

Even all the haggling here about the nature of dasein would finally be put to rest.
Yeah and everything would need to be checked by God. He's the one authority on everything and only He knows what you should be doing. LOL.

Want to know how long you should chew your food ... check with God.

Are you sleeping too long or not long enough? ... check with God.

What a prison. The warden's "permission" is required for everything. And there is no escape. As for the afterlife ... more of the fucking same.
"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 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:33 pm

phyllo wrote:
And, depending on whose God it actually turns out to be, the truth about farting and all other behaviors would finally be pinned to the mat. The problematic relationship between before and after the grave would be succinctly resolved.

In other words, that transcendent Font that folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant speculated about would have become manifest. You want immortality, salvation, divine Justice? Well, this is what you have to do.

Even all the haggling here about the nature of dasein would finally be put to rest.
Yeah and everything would need to be checked by God. He's the one authority on everything and only He knows what you should be doing. LOL.

Want to know how long you should chew your food ... check with God.

Are you sleeping too long or not long enough? ... check with God.

What a prison. The warden's "permission" is required for everything. And there is no escape. As for the afterlife ... more of the fucking same.


Sure, we can turn it into a Tonight Show comedy monologue, but there really are some rather serious implications to God coming out of the closet.

Right?

For example, I can check with Him about you and you can check with Him about me.

And [of late] I've become increasingly more curious about the part after the grave.

On the other hand [admittedly] do I really want to know? :wink:
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 Mar 09, 2017 10:38 pm

Sure, we can turn it into a Tonight Show comedy monologue, but there really are some rather serious implications to God coming out of the closet.

Right?
Yeah, I said there were "serious implications" to God letting you know that He's there watching you 24/7. All of them basically negative.
"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 Mar 10, 2017 7:56 pm

phyllo wrote:
Sure, we can turn it into a Tonight Show comedy monologue, but there really are some rather serious implications to God coming out of the closet.

Right?
Yeah, I said there were "serious implications" to God letting you know that He's there watching you 24/7. All of them basically negative.


From His point of view or from mine?
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 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:23 pm

From His point of view or from mine?
You're the expert on your own point of view and I don't pretend to speak for God.
"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 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
From His point of view or from mine?
You're the expert on your own point of view and I don't pretend to speak for God.


But my point of view relating to God and religion is rooted in dasein. And I don't pretend to be an expert on that. I merely situate the manner in which I have come to understand this relationship between them out in the particular world that I have lived in.

Just like you do.

Only we think about the implications of it in different ways.

And while I don't expect you to speak for God, I shall encourage you to note the manner in which you choose the behaviors that you do on this side of the grave as this pertains to what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave.

As this pertains to your own perception/conception of God and religion.

And here is where we are so far:

Me:

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?

You:

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" .


Fair enough. But if and when that ever changes please let me know. After all, it might precipitate the changes that I am searching for to reconfigure my own grim perspective.
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 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:34 pm

But my point of view relating to God and religion is rooted in dasein. And I don't pretend to be an expert on that.
:lol: You're hilarious.
Fair enough. But if and when that ever changes please let me know. After all, it might precipitate the changes that I am searching for to reconfigure my own grim perspective.
Dude, you don't want to change. You want to talk about your life. You want to talk about your ideas about "philosophy". You want to rationalize the decisions that you made during your life. You want to kill some time.
"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 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
But my point of view relating to God and religion is rooted in dasein. And I don't pretend to be an expert on that.
:lol: You're hilarious.


Well, it is almost certainly true that, from time to time, even I don't know when I am being ironic. But, no doubt, you would be the expert on that.

You are, aren't you? :wink:

Fair enough. But if and when that ever changes please let me know. After all, it might precipitate the changes that I am searching for to reconfigure my own grim perspective.


phyllo wrote: Dude, you don't want to change. You want to talk about your life. You want to talk about your ideas about "philosophy". You want to rationalize the decisions that you made during your life. You want to kill some time.


This might be true, but I doubt it. On the other hand, with the Grim Reaper more or less right around the corner, one is often propelled [even compelled] to take these things sertiously.

Still, I'm not inside your head and you're not inside mine.

And that's about as stuck as two people can get.
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 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:36 pm

Still, I'm not inside your head and you're not inside mine.
I don't have to be inside your head ... I evaluate based on your posts. You avoid any sort of resolution or movement from your basic position. Even if you had a very strong position, arguments/circumstances would necessitate at least micro movements around/away from it. But you do not move. That's why you keep posting the same cut-and-paste ... you don't want to change a word or even a comma.

Yeah, I know that "30 years ago you believed something completely different" so you claim that "you are ready change at any moment" if only you hear the "perfect" argument.

I don't think that's true any longer. But whatever... :D
"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 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:52 pm

phyllo wrote:
Still, I'm not inside your head and you're not inside mine.
I don't have to be inside your head ... I evaluate based on your posts. You avoid any sort of resolution or movement from your basic position. Even if you had a very strong position, arguments/circumstances would necessitate at least micro movements around/away from it. But you do not move. That's why you keep posting the same cut-and-paste ... you don't want to change a word or even a comma.


Making me the argument. I get that part.

So, here is where we now stand as it pertains to the actual reason that I created the thread:

Me:

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?

You:

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".

Now, if that should ever change, please consider bringing the new revelations here.
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 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:13 pm

Making me the argument. I get that part.
Is that going to be your answer to Gib? In his latest post, he also said that you are not open to change. :wink:
Me:

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?

You:

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".

Now, if that should ever change, please consider bringing the new revelations here.
What's wrong with saying that I don't know what is beyond? What's wrong with saying that I don't know what a judgement by God would be like? Or if there even is a judgement?
It seems more honest than claiming that I know all about God and the afterlife, as some people do.

If I don't know my fate in "the beyond", how can I possibly claim to know the fate of the people who disagree with me?

Revelations? I have learned a few things over the years. There are productive behaviors and destructive behaviors in the here and now. People are damaging their own lives. I can try to bring that to their attention but I can't make them do anything. I'm not living their lives for them.

I'm not preaching.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users