on discussing god and religion

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.

  1. My God doesn’t exist yet.

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

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.

  1. 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…

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[size=50]In the interim however we are still on our own.[/size]

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:

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?

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.

:laughing: You’re hilarious.

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.

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:

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.

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… :smiley:

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.

Is that going to be your answer to Gib? In his latest post, he also said that you are not open to change. :wink:

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.

What can I say…

I point out all of the many times in the past that I have changed my mind regarding God and religion. And regarding most other things relating to the world of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. But not only does this not impress you, you scoff at it.

And then I note how it is also true that for many years now, I have been entangled in my dilemma above. As this relates to the manner in which I construe the relationship between God/No God, as this relates to the relationship between morality on this side of the grave and our fate on the other side of it.

I can’t just change my mind about this because it bothers folks like you that of late I haven’t.

But here I am in places like this searching for other narratives.

Or maybe you just get hung up on my polemical bent. Or the part where I use these exchanges to entertain myself while waiting patiently for godot.

But:

Because you are not “inside my head” and really know nothing at all about my motivations and intentions here [let alone a life lived leading up to them] how would I really even begin to effectively narrow the gap between us?

Again, fair enough.

It just fascinates me how those who embody both a belief in God and a belief in objective morality, are able to describe the manner in which this all unfolds “in their head” when they reach those existential junctures where their values do come into conflict with others.

How does God and religion play a part for them “out in the world” of competing wants and needs? Of competing means and ends?

What does it mean to encompass a particular moral agenda here regarding an issue like abortion? Such that one is convinced that The Right Thing To Do is within reach, and one believes that God and religion are a factor in this.

How is this all intertwined in their head?

I always come back to this:

With so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – how could a loving, just and merciful God really leave any room for doubt?

Well, at least you have this. For me “productive” and “destructive” bahaviors are still largely embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. They are largely just “existential contraptions” rooted subjectively in the lives that we live out in a particular world viewed from a particular point of view. Out in a world where [from my frame of mind] there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to place their wagers on the right God.

Or the right Reason.

All I know is the stuff you have posted here over approximately 6 years and a few of your posts at KTS.

I’m sure you have changed in past … you did not think the same things as a 5-year-old or 20-year-old, etc. I scoff at it because it’s so obviously true.

A person who learns is changing. But that person is getting better at something. He/she knows more right stuff. He/she is better able to distinguish right and wrong. He/she is better able to evaluate.
That doesn’t happen within your dasein philosophy. Your “daseiner” just changes from one intellectual contraption to another. He/she never improves.

How is that possible? Why is it only applicable to identity and value judgements? In every other human endeavor, a person who studies and practices… improves. Tennis, music, reading comprehension, etc …

It’s not the fact that you don’t change that bothers me … it’s the fact that you claim that you want help with your dilemma, but you dismiss all suggestions without much thought or effort. You don’t consider them. You don’t even temporarily go down some hypothetical path.

Yeah, that’s part of it. But think about this … maybe you don’t really want a solution to your dilemma, maybe you only want entertainment and distraction while you wait.

Maybe your dilemma is useful to you and you really want to hang on to it.

Could that be it? It would explain a lot. :-k

You have control over what you think and what you decide to do. You don’t have control over what others think and what they do.

Conflict over values is a fight to promote your values over others.

Yeah, the Nazis want to inflict their world view on me and I want to inflict my world view on them. If they succeed then I’m a slave or dead or I have to accept their view and live within it.

This is the thing… even in a very anti-Semitic society, the number of people willing to build concentration camps and extermination camps is very small.

It goes against objective morality. To make it palatable requires that some humans are dehumanized. Even after decades of propaganda, secrecy and doubt has to be maintained.

Sure, God and religion are the authority that can be used to prop up wants and needs.

Are they your own wants and needs or have they been “given” to you by some overlord? You gotta know yourself.

I think you can know yourself at least well enough to get rid of some biases.

You can’t escape your Protestant Christian roots. :smiley:

Yes, we certainly disagree about this.

The transcending font seems to be human biology produced by evolution. That would be the source of objective morality (if there is any objective morality).