on discussing god and religion

Again, what are you arguing here? That because I am still an atheist and still entangled in my dilemma that proves that I will never be willing to take into consideration the arguments of others? You just know this?

And here I am entangled in a dilemma that fractures and fragments “me” to the point that I am unable to “take a stand” regarding moral and political commitments. Why? Because even to the extent that I take political leaps to one or another position, I still recognize them for the “existential contraptions” that [from my frame of mind here and now] they are. Also, as I get closer and closer to the dreaded oblivion I have nothing to make that go away. Whereas most religious folks are able to think themselves into believing it’s not really oblivion at all.

On the contrary, it is one or another rendition of salvation itself. Paradise for some.

Again, there are folks who do have the comfort and the consolation of being able to connect those dots between here and now and there and then. They know what the “right thing to do” is. And they know “in their head” that if they do the right thing they are Heaven bound.

And the only reason I created this thread was that, way back when, zinnat had promised me that he would eventually get around to that part himself.

So, sure, I can see why I have absolutely nothing to gain at all in having others reconfigure my bleak and somber frame of mind with an argument that yanks me up out of this grim hole that I’m in.

Notice how that more or less revolves around the distinction that I am always making between the world of either/or and the world of is/ought. The world of empirical rerality and the world of value judgments and religious convictions. As that relates to our capacity to demonstrate that what we believe about reality in either world is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

So, with regard to “reason and judgement” that can be “methodically applied” to Jesus Christ, let the Christians among us demonstrate why and how reasonable men and women should believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

And though this may well be “impossible” to settle, I can only keep pointing out that with so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – it would seem incumbent upon Christians to come up with the most convincing argument of all.

Do you have one?

Think again.

Yes, you really do believe that don’t you? And, in believing it, it affords you ample peace of mind.

I get that part.

But what on earth does it have to do with the points that I am raising on this thread?

Looks like we’re stuck: youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ

youtube.com/watch?v=GYMLMj-SibU

Maybe.

But here I am getting closer and closer and closer to the abyss. And if my own understanding of it is correct this means that for all of eternity I will be utterly detached from…

1] the folks I love
2] the music I love
3] the films I love
4] the books I love
5] the art I love
6] the food I love
7] the programs on PBS that I love
8] the discussions I love
9] the emotions I love
10] everything else that I love

So, I ask myself, in that context how on earth can I learn to accept death on a philosophical level.

And I presume that, for all of eternity, you in turn will become utterly detached from all of the things that you love.

How then do you manage to put that into perspective philosophically?

From my frame of mind it all comes down to this: That [sooner or later] even all of the things that I love will be no match for all of the accumulating pain and suffering that comes attached to a body getting older and older and older.

Indeed, it can even become so lopsided that you literally beg to die.

Unless of course you’ve got one of another religious narrative to fall back on.

Okay, what does that have to do with the points that I am raising?

Look, you have the comfort and the consolation embedded in your own rendition of God. And all that this implies when connecting the dots between before and after the grave.

So, for all practical purposes, you win. :wink: [-o< :wink:

Could this be any more abstract?

Can it be illustrated with specific incidents which occur to real people?

It’s all in the head, isn’t it?

Those guys over there have illusions. But what I’m writing about illusions is not an illusion. :laughing:

He quipped…sarcastically?

The irony then revolving around the fact it really is hard to imagine a frame of mind more abstract.

In other words, is what he proposes here true?

Imagine this…

Someone is up on the podium and he notes all of this for us. We wonder: How is this applicable to the life that I live from day to day?..to my interactions with others?..to particular contexts in which I find myself entangled in conflicts with others?

And [of course] how do my thoughts and feelings about God and religion become [for all practical purposes] intertwined in it?

Is this or is this not the single most important factor in attempting to adduce his meaning?

No, “human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought” that arise in particular minds in particular sets of circumstances in particular historical and cultural contexts.

Right?

But not all that we exchange in discussions of God/No God is illusory. There are any number of things that we can demonstrate to others as in fact true about our own particular narrative.

I merely focus on those parts that seem [to me] to be considerably more problematic. We believe that what we claim to know here is true. But are we then able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are in turn obligated to share our own frame of mind? In other words, if they wish to be thought of as reasonable men and women themselves.

And how specifically do we then connect the dots [on this thread] between the behaviors that we choose here and now and that which we imagine the consequences of choosing them will be “on the other side”.

Who is to say that when you die, you get all your marbles back-- you get back everything you loved that made you love worthy. Who is to say that death is the final triumph of nihilism? Yes the latter sounds too bleak to endure, even for a moment.

When you play marbles with some people, they play for keeps and so it’s impossible to get all of your marbles back. I think it’s kind of like that.

“Someday I’ll be a weather-beaten skull resting on a grass pillow,
Serenaded by a stray bird or two.
Kings and commoners end up the same,
No more enduring than last night’s dream.”
― Ryokan

Death twitches my ear. ‘‘Live,’’ he says, ‘‘I am coming.’’
― Virgil

There is no fundamental difference between the preparation for death and the practice of dying,
and spiritual practice leading to enlightenment.
― Stanislav Grof

That’s not really my point though.

My point revolves more around the extent to which, whatever you say regarding before and after the grave, you either are or are not able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share it.

After all, if someone is able to show me that, in accepting Jesus Christ as my own personal savior, I will get all of my marbles back…an immortal surrounded by loved ones in paradise for all of eternity…I’d jettison nihilism in a heartbeat.

It always comes down to that distinction between believing what you do because it comforts and consoles you and believing what you do because not believing it can clearly be shown to be an unreasonable frame of mind.

But, sure, in the end what always counts is that which you are able to think yourself into believing.

For, among other things, all practical purposes.

Nobody is obligated to believe anything - it’s a free universe.

Nobody is obligated to demonstrate anything - it’s a free choice to do so.

Your thought are your own. Do with them what you will.

Prove that it is free. The burden of proof is on those who state the theory or the fact. Prove that we are free to believe anything and everything. Prove that we are free to choose. You are thus obligated for being hoisted upon the fact that you stated such as an absolute fact. You may not have started the mess but you are caught mainlining and spreading it. If you do not fulfill your social obligation, you may begin to understand why your life is messed up and why it seems like life is fucking you. If you do fulfill it, you might realize the same along different tracks, but at least you’ll have your head somewhat clear of a shit-stain and be able to see a little better. I don’t expect you to fulfill your social obligation to be pressed by the burden to prove your statement, though.

Nothing can prevent a thought except another thought.

Choice is just another thought.

My thoughts about this are entirely under my control.

What do you call them when they’re not thoughts? You don’t, you just call them thoughts and then compound it by calling them your own. You don’t think half the time, you blurt with the words bypassing your brain. And, who comes up with that? Yet I bet you claim it as byproduct of ‘your’ subconscious.

Nothing I think or believe can necessarily compel all reasonable people to think or believe as I do. For me God is real and can be experienced. All rational people do not have to believe my claim, but some do. I am basically a naturalist, so I do not espouse pie in the sky when you die religiosity, especially as some reward for what anyone does in this life. I see a God who created All and who will eventially reclaim All.

A God experience, as is true of qualia, can be communicated intersubjectively provided some aspects of the experience or quale can be known by more than one person. It may be that, without our similarities, we could not communicate at all. So the numbers of those having a God experience does not necessarily disprove the fact of the experience, nor does an increase in numbers of claims prove it. The experience is its own proof, and it is one that can be shared with others.

Unless, of course, it is a wholly determined universe. And God, of course, was obligated to make it that way.

Unless, of course, they really are just “existential contraptions”.

Unless, of course, they really aren’t.

Obligated by who or to who?

There are no obligations in a determined universe - unless you want to call the motions of colliding billiard balls … obligated motions. But that’s just silly.

They are your own existential contraptions or they are your own non-contraptions. :-"

Well, sure, until we are able to grasp the very ontological nature of existence itself, everything and anything is up for grabs regarding what we believe.

I just draw the line between demonstrating that, say, it is reasonable to believe that the Catholic church is in fact a Christian denomination, and believing that the souls of those who are not Catholics are at risk on Judgment Day.

[For the Catholics among us: Are they?]

Okay, but to what extent have you grappled with this in order to determine that “I” here is an entirely rational [necessary] frame of mind; or is instead an “existential contraption” rooted more in the particular trajectory [experiences] that you encountered in the course of actually living your life? What I call dasein.

And all I can keep coming back to here is this: that with so much at stake on the other side of the grave – oblivion or salvation – how can you really be certain that your frame of mind “here and now” is not just a psychological device [a defense mechanism]allowing you to embody some measure of comfort and consolation regarding the parts both before and after the grave.

You feel it, I don’t. Good for you.

Maybe. Who am I to say this is not the way it really is? But that still leaves the part where you make choices from day to day that come into conflict with others; if you choose to interact with them socially, politically and economically in any particular community. You have your idea of what constitutes good and bad behavior, they have theirs. But given that God will claim all souls – both the liberals and the conservatives, the believers and the non-believers, the saints and the sinners – does it really make any difference then what behaviors we choose?