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?
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.