Some human beings function better when alone and isolated and do not find it unspeakable at all
YES … and thank God for that … can’t imagine what humanity would look like if all people only functioned well in the “crowd” 
I certainly do not function well in the crowd and so am grateful that I can be myself away from it where I function far better
Your last comment reminds me of Thomas Kempis … author of the book Imitation of Christ … a book still in print 600 years later.
He spent all of his adult life in a monastery … lived to the ripe old age of 91 … probably an extraordinary life span for that era.
He said … paraphrasing … “Every time I go out into the world … leave the monastery … I come back more vexed than before I left.”
Seems a few people are capable of functioning in both worlds … in the ‘crowd’ … and in ‘isolation’.
Yet very few … if any … of these few enjoy both … like you … those who prefer isolation find functioning in the ‘crowd’ a real trial.
Note to Uccisore:
Is this as far as the theist/religionist/objectivist etc., need go? They give you their own answer. You don’t accept it. Thus proving that you are incapable of recognizing the truth about God.
Also, cannot those who believe in yet another God, make the same claim of Christians?
It is a fact that you and folks like Jacob provide me with an answer. But what I am hearing is only that which you both profess to believe is true “in your head”.
My point is both of you basically claim that what you believe is true in your head constitutes proof enough. You are unable to demonstrate [either to each other or to me] that it is the obligation of all rational/virtuous folks to believe the same.
In fact, both of you can’t be correct, right? “Out in the world” of human interactions going all the way back [so far] to the Big Bang, it is either RM or VO.
And that’s before we get to the thousands upon thousands of conflicting and contradictory assessments from all the other objectivists.
I then speculate that, in pointing this out to them, they will all still insist that their own objective font – God, reason, ideology, TOE, nature etc. – reflects the one true understanding of Existence and/or Human Reality.
True. We can say anything if it is believed that what we say is confirmed merely because we believe that what we say is true “in our heads”. But how do we demonstrate this to others who say something else is true.
Scientists have been successfully accomplishing this now for centuries pertaining to the “laws of nature”.
And the ethicists?
Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
I don’t pretend I know less than all that one would need to know in order to fully explain things like this. I merely make a distinction between the world of either/or and the world of is/ought.
And I certainly don’t preach nihilism. I merely note the extent to which a nihilistic frame of mind [in – presumptuously – a world sans God] precipitated this “in my head”:
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.
Then I go looking for the arguments of others that might succeed in yanking me up out of it.
And, indeed, wouldn’t it then be all the more miraculous if, in turn, they succeeded in convincing me that oblivion is not to be my fate beyond the grave.
After all, as I keep reminding folks like you and Phyllo, this grim prognosis is not to be your fate, is it?
Or so [here and now] you both now believe in your heads.
You do, don’t you, James?
Or perhaps not? What do you believe here and now that your fate will be after you are no longer a mere mortal?
[let’s see if once again you will simply disappear from an exchange with me]
You don’t say what would constitute an adequate demonstration. Some “typical” atheists say that an adequate demonstration of God’s existence is God popping up and doing a miracle for them. Anything short of that is not a demonstration. But God doesn’t seem to like doing magic tricks on demand. So it seems that those atheists are out of luck.
How long can one or should one talk to such an atheist about the existence of God? Not long.
The thing is … you don’t accept anything as a valid measure of ethical conduct. If someone came along and rejected all measures of length (or time), then scientists would not be able to demonstrate the “laws of nature”. Demonstrations require some agreed and accepted standards.
I don’t care if oblivion is on the other side of the grave.
I live with the pragmatic attitude expressed by Marcus Aurelius:
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
That’s understandable. After all, all many religious folks profess is a faith in God. Then “for all practical purposes” they can always fall back on “God works in mysterious” ways; and then not concern themselves too much with things like this. Or with all things…theodical?
But how can a man or a woman not care about the fate of another’s soul? How, after all, is the fate of another’s soul not related eventually to the fate of your own?
Or you could be a member of one or another tribe. We know that historically each scenario has no doubt been played out.
And what of the fate of the souls of the members of the thrid tribe? If they die never even having know the existence of the Christian God how can they not be given a “get out of Hell free” pass from God?
And, if a member of the first tribe converts to Christianity, and then sins egregiously, is it not the responsibility of the missionary who “saved” him, if he ends up in Hell?
Sure, the true believer can simply not think about things like this. But that doesn’t make the fate of the souls go away.
What do you think will be the fate of their souls? How about your own?
Then he is back to demonstrating the actual existence of a God, the God, his God when confronted with complexities like this.
What does it have to do with faith???
There is a limit to human knowledge. What if you asked an atheist what happens to a soul after death and he answered “I don’t know”? Would you attribute it to “faith” or that the “un-god works in mysterious ways”?
Maybe it’s simply an understanding and acceptance that there are things beyond your control. Or believing that each man/woman is seeking only his own salvation. Or believing that each man/woman has his own relationship with God.
He doesn’t need to demonstrate anything. If God exists, then God will take care of the soul in some way. If God doesn’t exist, then the soul dissolves and there is nothing to take care of.
We think about this in different ways.
Most embrace one or another narrative/agenda pertaining to one or another God. They say that their own religion is the right one.
Furthermore the major religious denominations [on this planet] argue that God will judge our behaviors on this side of the grave. And that, if we pass muster, our reward is immortality, Salvation and Divine Justice.
Now, sure, we can define a “demonstration” of God’s existence here with either more or less specificity.
But the bottom line [mine] is that there are still many different renditions of God out there with any number of conflicting scripts relating to any number of different human behaviors; and they all more or less insist [like those missionaries above] that you either get it right…or else.
[b]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?
Is there any way at all that you can take this out of your head? A way that you can demonstrate that your own moral and political values are in sync with the one true God?[/b]
Indeed, I’ve lost count of how many times that I have tried to pin religionists down on this.
On the contrary, I recognize that those on either side of any particular moral conflict of note can make reasonable arguments. Conflicting good, remember?
And then there is the argument of the sociopath. Or the argument of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy and predicate almost all transactions on a scripture that commences with “show me the money”.
But most folks “resolve” this dilemma by positing one or another God. It’s all settled. Behave as you should and you are rewarded, behave as you should not and you are punished.
I’m just trying to grasp the extent to which you think like this? Do you? And, if so, name a particular behavior out in a particular context out in this particular world.
Again, bringing it all down to earth. Existentially as it were.
Many scientists recognize that the laws of nature are still embedded in David Hume’s radical skepticism. Correlation [no matter how many times A begets B begets C] does not necessarily equate with cause and effect.
Sure, there are things about both time and space [space-time] that we may well be far, far, far from fully understanding.
The point though is this: is it either 1] one or the other re the immutable laws of nature or 2] is there a teleology behind it all? That which most call God.
And it is with God that [supposedly] the world of is/ought [on this side of the grave] is able to be reconfigured into a world of either/or on Judgement Day. You either get in or you don’t.
All I do here is poke the religionists in the side and say “let’s talk about it”.
Only “out in the world” of actual human interactions rather than up in the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions.
Or as all of this pertains to the psychological defense mechanism that some construe “blind faith” to be.
On the other hand, as you get closer and closer and closer to it, you may well come to change your mind. I sure wish that I could.
Indeed, as with most things of this sorts, it is embedded more in existence itself rather than in any particular way in which any particular mind can concoct a “defense mechanism” to keep it all more…at a distance.
I wonder how he fared on Judgment Day? You know, if he had one.
On the other hand, if there be a God, it all comes down [necessarily] to that which He insists is “just”. And that takes us right back to all the different Gods out there that are worshipped and adored prescribing and proscribing conflicting [even contradictory] renditions of all this as it pertains to different behaviors.
For example, being homosexual. Is that “just”? Are there homosexuals in Heaven?
Oh, and how about Liberals? 
That’s funny. One would think that it falls into your categories of identity, value judgements and intellectual contraptions. Yet, you suddenly “embed it in existence itself”. 
If every measure is equally ‘reasonable’ then there are no better measures, no good measures and bad measures … basically no standard of measurement.
Hell, you can’t even say that pressing the button and destroying the entire world is wrong. 
Well, it is one thing to say that you have faith in God, and another thing altogether to insist that God does in fact exist. Faith [to me] implies doubt.
And, over the years as a political activist, I bumped into any number of very, very intelligent men and women [whom I had great respect for] who professed a faith in one or another God.
As, at one point in my life, I had a great faith in too.
If there is a limit to human knowledge, it can only be as a result of the God who created us. Right?
An atheist would say “I don’t know” because, in the absence of a belief in God, she has no capacity to know.
And, sure, the atheist is no less faced with her own ignorance regarding this. She too can [ultimately] only have faith in No God.
But, it’s not really the same though, is it? For instance, for all practical purposes.
Unless “in your head” you make them the same.
But if one of the things that is beyond your control is knowing which God to worship in order to embrace a set of behaviors that will gain you access to immortality and salvation, how is that too not but another indication of a less than Almighty God?
Like the song says…
You’d have managed better
If you’d had it planned
Now why’d you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
If you’d come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
But don’t get him wrong.
Come on, just in terms of common sense, is that really the doing of an entity said [by most] to be “all knowing and all powerful”, “loving, just and merciful”?
Of course there are literally millions upon millions of religionists out there who will insist that you could not possibly have gotten the one true God more wrong. Oh, there’s a soul all right, but yours is clearly in need of “saving”.
But I’ll let you take that part up with them yourself.
Or are you one of those “cafeteria” type religionists? An ecumenical? You get to pick and choose any and all behaviors that you can personally square with the God that exist “in your head”.
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” .
You keep pretending that nobody wants to talk about it.
I’ve tried to talk to you about this dozens of times. And I’m not the only one.
But when it’s in progress, it’s the same cut and paste discussion over and over. Yeah, after a while … they don’t want talk to you any more.
That’s when you declare victory.
But my “categories” of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here. What I go looking for are the arguments of those able to demonstrate that this is considerably less the case with/for them. And that they are somehow able to transcend these existential components and arrive at a God that they are indeed able to demonstrate as in fact existing.
As this relates to the manner in which they do connect the dots between before and after the grave.
Something that [above] I broached with you. And, once again, you don’t seem to find it worth exploring.
On the other hand, neither do folks like Uccisore or Turd.
IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it … even mid-discussion.
This is a fundamental problem. There is no stability or consistency. What is there to discuss? How can anything be discussed?
They are deemed reasonable given the political assumptions/premises that are commanded from both sides.
If you start with the assumption that the unborn have a natural right to life then those who abort babies are wrong.
Then it comes down to the consequences of that. With God, the consequene [for the vast majority of religionists] revoles around Judgment Day.
If you start with the assumption that women have the political right to abort, then those who would stop them are wrong.
Then it comes down to consequences. Without God, the consequence [for many pro-lifers] would be an arrest, a trial, a verdict and if found guilty one or another punishment.
And how is this not the same for all other political issues in which conflicting goods exist?
And that’s before we get to the part in which I explore the extent to which these goods come to be embodied more existentially than essentially.
Indeed, I suspect that any number of miserable bastards out there would like nothing better than for that to happen. They simply rationalize it.
Oh, and what happens when the next “extinction event” occurs and, once again, most of life on earth is wiped out.
That might be called an “act of God”, right?
Then keep up
You cannot force someone to be consistent because you are… it seems to be a case of transients Vs statics. Is that not life/reality?
You just transferred the lack of standards to ‘assumptions’ … you’re saying that there are no good and bad assumptions, no better assumptions and no way to analyze assumptions.
Yeah, they’re miserable bastards and I will go out on a limb and say that there is something wrong with them, their attitude and their (potential) behavior. I know … now you will call me Mr. Objectivist.
What does that have to do with whether the miserable bastards are right or wrong?