on discussing god and religion

Where was “comfort and consolation” in that “utterly abstract general description” of my life and thinking? Nowhere. It’s not applicable.

If I wanted to be comforted and consoled then I could adopt other thinking.

I could pretend that Communism is good. It would be great if Communism worked as described in the writings, the slogans and the movies. But in reality, it’s a miserable failure. Or to be more accurate, it’s a bigger failure than capitalism.

The fact is that almost any belief can be comforting and consoling, even ones that seem unpleasant. Nihilism can be comforting because it justifies not trying all sorts of things. Now, to be clear, it need nto be comforting, but it can be. He would likely say that his nihilism is unpleasant, but that does not mean he is not avoiding things that scare him. It might not or it might.

So it’s just boring ad hom stuff. He is suffering so his beliefs are not based on consolation. We seem to be suffering less, so our beliefs must be based on consolation. Snore.

How does this all related to discussing God and Religion?

It relates because the religious and atheists alike love to go for ad homs. If we are speaking generally.

And that doesn’t seem to be very practical as far as either group’s goals. At least the one’s they generally proclaim.

I think a real discussion between theists and atheists would have it’s form very dependent on the goals. And the goals would likely not be mutual.

If the atheists want to push forward epistemological concerns, then it behooves them to join in the practices of the theists in question. If the theists want to compel the atheists to believe, then they are going to have to suggest this also, but further understand that such processes would necessarily be long. and also understand that the atheists may not be interested. Hence a gap in experience. Gaps in experience, huge gaps, make certain kinds of discussion extremely limited. And either side pretending they know what the other person’s experiences really are, or mean, is making psychic and epistemological claims that I think are week.

So, given the most atheists won’t participate in practices and community, how does the discussion happen

given the gap.

Depends on the goal.

What’s the goal?

“Comfort and consolation” is code for “You guys are avoiding looking at the truth. You’re compromising, rationalizing and ignoring in order to be comfortable.”

I don’t see either of us doing that. He hasn’t presented a simple bit of evidence that we are.

There would have to be a mutual respect in the first place and I think that’s missing these days. I’m surprised how little respect there is in these forums(not just ILP) and how quickly posters become judgemental, aggressive and dismissive. It’s a “I’m wonderful, you’re delusional” attitude that stops effective communication. Ironic in an age where we are all supposed to be connected in a global village.

And then it would be beside the point, and assumes, on the side of that he has no such reasons for his beliefs, lack of beliefs, and attitude.

We’re connected more with like minds and then like data through those minds. Or so they say.

Okay, if the manner in which you think about God and religion and objective morality does not bring you some measure of comfort and consolation, it’s not applicable to you.

On the other hand, in order that others might come to understand this relationship as it unfolds for you [for all practical purposes] you will either intertwine it in a description of the life that you do live or you won’t.

I can only base my own speculations here on the many experiences I have had with those for whom God and religion were an important foundation upon which to engender behaviors that then came to revolve around the “real me” in touch with “the right thing to do”.

As, long ago, it once did for me.

Obviously: It will work differently for different people. That’s the whole point behind exploring the existential relationship between “I”, value judgements, context and dasein.

Historically, it was a spectacular failure. But advocates still today can spin you a narrative that explains why that was the case. And why it had nothing to do with the inherent goodness of Communism. And why capitalism will always revolve around the greatest good for the fewest number.

But, as with God and religion, secular political ideologies are tailor made for the objectivist mind. A psychological foundation upon which to embed “I” in the best of all possible worlds.

Again, it’s less what you believe the font is and more that you believe the font exists.

Ever and always your own.

It makes me think that it might be good to put the goals you have for the discussion first. Which might save a lot of time. On the other hand one has to be honest about those goals, especially, or at least first, with oneself.

Goals like:
I was raised in the church left it and I have a lot of bitterness.
I hate what people get away with nowadays and I want to put the fear of God into them.

Of course there may be all sorts of goals more conducive to a pleasant, interesting meeting of the minds, but if there are these things, then they should be out front. That way it is clear what is happening and what will likely happen.

And then if there was some sort of backdrop to such discussions that encouraged exploration over defeating.

I discovered that I had to eat in order to survive. I enjoy eating. I might as well enjoy it since I have to do it anyways. But I didn’t invent eating to get enjoyment, comfort or consolation from it.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

Even after all these years, I have no idea what the practical consequences are of this. The “real me” is the one that exists in the present moment and everyone thinks that he/she is doing “the right thing” when doing it.

So what’s the real issue down on the earth?

You’re mistaken about how you see yourself? You make mistakes when making decisions? Seems to describe everyone.

People are too arrogant. Sure. People ought to be confident but not arrogant.

That doesn’t seem to be anything that you can change.

No, not really. At least not as it relates to the trajectory I wished to explore on this thread. The one that grapples more with the moral parameters of consuming food on this side of the grave as it relates to the fate of “I” on the other side.

You eat food because you have to. Nature made it taste good to prompt you to eat the stuff all the more. Nature also created hunger pains and death by starvation in order to compel you.

On the other hand…

“Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes–one child every five seconds. 852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago.”

mercycorps.org/articles/qui … bal-hunger

Now, this thread would focus more on how one might react to these facts, given how one might choose to behave “here and now” in order to sustain what they would like their fate to be “there and then”.

How are “I” and “Thou” and human values intertwined existentially here in the life you live.

Assuming, of course, that human autonomy is a factor.

The “real me” is certainly embodied existentially in the “facts of life”: How old you are, where you reside, the state of your health, your financial situation, your interactions with others, the actual experiences you have had etc. etc. etc…

No one can dispute any number of “things” about you. Unless they are not of sound mind. Why? Because these things can often be clearly demonstrated.

But what of the “real me” in regard to the behaviors that you choose or the God that you believe in; or the way you connect the dots between them here and now in your head?

To what extent is “I” here more an existential contraption rather than an actual “thing” that exist deep down inside any particular individual. The “core” you. The “soul” that you are.

How is that demonstrated to be true for others? In particular as it relates to the points I raised in the OP?

Yup.

There is no prospect of any advancement.

That’s all folks.

[attachment=0]LL5S.jpg[/attachment]

Nope.

There is always the prospect of advancement in exchanges such as this because everyday there is in turn always the prospect of one of us having a new experience or a forming a new relationship or coming into contact with a new idea etc., such that it reconfigures our thinking.

It’s just that when someone’s way of thinking here and now already provides him with a respectable measure of psychological comfort and consolation there is more resistance to this reconfiguring “I”.

There’s just too much to lose.

Now, I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves who this is more applicable to. :wink:

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

This seems entirely reasonable to me. With God you have that crucial transcending point of view such that there can never be any doubt as to what is immoral, who is being immoral and whether being immoral will get one punished.

Nothing those who advocate secular renditions of morality have come up with down through the ages has ever come close to this. After all, how on earth could they?

So, for any number of human communities, it’s not a question of if God exists, but in challenging those who refuse to accept their own. With God they have behaviors reduced down to sin. Without God they have endless conflicting goods that, sooner or later, comes down to who has the actual power to enforce their own.

And around and around they go. But, let’s face it, the secularists have never really managed to make those points go away. And that’s before the part where immortality and salvation kick in.

And even if you can’t bring yourself to believe in something that has never actually been experienced by you in any substantive or substantial manner, there’s always a leap of faith. You just have to be convinced that it is a genuine leap of faith.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

Over and again, I stress the importance of this with respect to human morality.

Without an omniscient and omnipotent font to seal Hitler’s fate as [one presumes] a denizen of Hell, it still today comes down to mere mortals embracing conflicting assessments.

Though I’m sure there are those out there able to link fascism and genocide to their own rendition of God.

Just look at the narrative that Donald Trump is stirring up today in America.

It is simply imperative for some that this narrative be condemned as inherently, necessarily evil. And I certainly once believed that passionaitely myself.

Which it still may be. But how is this established sans God?

This is now the part that my own “fractured and fragmented” “I” is unable to sink down into. The Trumps of the world may prevail down the road but at least some have the comfort and consolation of knowing that he is unequvocally on the side of evil. And they are unequivocally on the side of good.

With God you get a demarcation here that is beyond all doubt. Without God you get whatever it is that you are able to think yourself into believing is good or evil.

The existential contraption “I” and “Thou”.

Bingo! The classic religious narrative. With regard to morality and everything else.

Then [of course] the true believers are left with the task of establishing “here and now” what that Good is. At least insofar as embodying it gains you access to the fate that you crave “there and then”: immortality and salvation.

And this thread was created for those who believe in God to flesh that out insofar as it impacts the behaviors they choose from day to day.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

Having proposed the argument that God is the necessary component enabling mere mortals to embrace objective morality, he next moves on to atheists.

And, as an atheist myself – “here and now” – this seems to be a perfectly reasonable assessment of human morality in a No God world.

Which is not to say that this makes it true objectively.

I am still forced to acknowledge that…

1] objective morality is possible in a No God world but the argument and the evidence demonstrating its existence have not come to my attention
2] the arguments and the evidence have come to my attention but I am not able to grasp them

Here I can only fall back on the assumption that if the argument and the evidence does exist, it would be all that everyone was talking about.

Just as if the argument and the evidence for God’s existence itself were available, that in turn would be all that everyone was talking about.

So, I am in the same boat that you are in: left to base my beliefs on the accumulation of actual experiences that I have had inclining me to go in one direction rather than another. And with no particular font around that is able to settle it all once and for all.

Again, this in turn seems entirely reasonable to me. Morality revolves around biological imperatives that are, in complex and convoluted ways, able to be shaped and molded memetically as human interactions evolve historically, culturally and interpersonally over time in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.

And, thus, our only recourse then is to devise methods – science in particular – that allows us to best differentiate things able to be demonstrated as true for all of us from things that are not.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

In my view, there are any number of secular arguments that pounce on this religious manifesto regarding morality and God. But none of them are actually able to make it go away.

After all, it is one thing to argue that, in a No God world, mere mortals are able to construct their own secular manifestos regarding behaviors said to be right or wrong for everyone.

But saying that they are and demonstrating how and why others are inherently, necessarily obligated to say the same thing, is something else altogether.

Instead, in my view, what we have come to say is good or bad, right or wrong is more a reflection of “I” as an existential contraption ceaselessly constructed and then reconstructed from the cradle to the grave. Predicated on the lives that we actually do live that can only ever be more or less in sync with lives of others. And, in fact, that are often very, very different.

And all I can do in believing this “here and now” is to go looking for the arguments of others who, given a God or a No God world, believe something else.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

This is important to point out. There are any number of religous folks who are more than willing to embrace this moral perspective. They are not nearly as concerned with condeming the non-believers to eternal damnation as they are with the arguments from those who insist that, in a No God world, objective moral narratives [configured into the political agendas of so-callled philosopher-kings] are even possible. The foundation of a religious Commandment is that it is backed up by an omniscient and omniponent Creator.

What then backs up the secular rendition of objective morality – a doctrinaire and dogmatic political ideology? And what if over the course of human history we are confronted with any number of political manifestos that in many crucial respects regarding actual human interactions, are in conflict?

Instead, it comes down more to demonstrating how on earth mere mortals who lack omniscience and omnipotence are able to both establish moral obligations and then to enforce them.

Which explains why down through the ages so many philosophers who did conclude that human interactions can be judged as either Good or Evil, did so based only on the assumption that there existed one or another embodiment of the “transcending font”.

Which most called God.

“Ephemeral” here being “historical” or “cultural” or “experiential” – embedded in a particular community in a particular time and place.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

Right?

Mindless matter evolved into living matter. Living matter evolved into mind matter. Mind matter evolved into self-conscious mind matter. Self conscious mind matter evolved historically and culturally into communities of human beings having no choice but to prescribe and proscribe “rules of behavior” in order to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions.

So, sans the transcending moral font that most call God, what becomes special about any particular aggregation of human beings out in any particular world?

Again, all of this assuming that, in the evolution of matter here, self-conscious mind matter is somehow able [sans God] to embody the actual capacity to choose freely among conflicting value judgments regarding conflicting behaviors.

Right?

From my frame of mind, I have [of late] yet to come upon a Humanist argument that makes this assessment go away in a No God world.

Now, sure, some will argue that I bring this up only because deep down inside I want someone to convince me to, once again, believe in God.

But: I do not believe in God. And while recognizing how much more comforting and consoling it would be if, once again, I did believe in Him, that doesn’t make the arguments I propose [as a moral nihilist] go away in the absence of actual proof that God exist.

Don’t believe in God?
How about gods? Aliens? Angels? Ascended beings?

You’ll need disproof for each of these things.

“Actual proof” is an inversion.
First we reject a proof, then we say what actual truth is supposed to be, instead of what it is.

“Proof” is a dirty word.
So is “Faith”.

People use these words often with mal-content.

Huh?

Why do people believe in God? Because, through God, they are on the path [the only path] to immortality, salvation and divine justice.

At least this is so “in their head” as long as they are able to believe it.

Only, as this thread seeks to explore, the dots must be connected between the behaviors one chooses on this side of the grave in order to be judged by God with regard to their fate on the other side of it.

The actual existential stakes here could not possibly be more extraordinary! Or higher!!

Though, sure, you can dismiss the part about actual proof that a God, the God, my God is the one.

You can choose instead a set of behaviors and simply have faith that He is the one.

So, tell me, how does it work for you?

After all, in my view, the part about needing proof is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

Some need it more than others. Some insist that needing it is more important than others.

But there is either what one can demonstrate is true for all rational people here or what one cannot.

Shrug that part off if you must but that doesn’t make the stakes go away.

Right?

God is an extreme idea.
gods is an idea of higher beings that can often die or change and reproduce, etc.

We know there is life on other planets and realms.
Well, i know there is, anyway.
That is just a fact that people often cannot face.

God is a huge difference compared to gods.

Quite the contrary in my view. For those able to ask questions like, “why am I here?” “what does it mean to be here?” “what is the purpose of my life?” “how ought I to live?” “what happens when I die?” etc., coming to the part we call God is just common sense. The singularity that explains everything.

Exactly. Dogs and turtles and earthworms are not likely to factor a Creator into the lives they live from day to day.

You know there is? Okay, how would you go about demonstrating that this is so to those like me who speculate that while it is likely that life exists on other planets, we have not been able to determine that definitively. God or No God.

Yes, but from my frame of mind, it is the thing they share in common that precipitated this thread. In other words, the fact that down through the ages both “the Gods” and “a God, the God, my God” are used by mere mortals on this planet to connect the dots between what is chosen on this side of the grave and what is hoped for on the other side of grave.

The rest is embedded historically, culturally and individually in dasein.