on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:01 pm

felix dakat wrote:

Previous attempts at dialogue with you have repeatedly broken down over your habit of dismissing other's concepts as "contraptions" rather than showing that you made good faith efforts to understand what others mean. I'm not interested in proffering ideas only to have them summarily shot down as contraptions. Without a demonstration that you at least attempt to comprehend a proposition and your reasons for rejecting it, "dialogue" is a waste of time.


Over and over again:

Note a set of circumstances in which we exchange our current thinking about God and religion as this relates to our current thinking about morality here and now and immorality there and then

Then in this exchange you can note these accusations you level against me.

That's the dialogue that I wish to pursue. God and religion as it relates to the behaviors we choose in regard to conflicting goods as that pertains to our thinking about "I" on the other side of the grave. That is the whole point of this thread.

felix dakat wrote: I don't view gods as possible explanations. I view them as archetypal representations of being which is fundamentally unexplainable.


Okay, so how do you view god and religion in regard to the behaviors you choose when confronted with a context in which others challenge those behaviors?

Instead, it's ever and always up in the clouds with you:

felix dakat wrote: I don't accept your three assumptions above as conditions for dialogue. The antimony of free will versus determinism is an open question. "Omniscience" is incomprehensible. "No God world" explains nothing.


Then explain the assumptions that you have accumulated in regard to free will, omniscience and the distinction you make between a God and a No God world.

Given a context that most of us are likely to be familiar with. Instead, we get this "context":

felix dakat wrote: A context for my statement about skepticism and cynicism is your thread and your use of the contraption dismissal. Whether or not I will supply more details depends on you convincing me that you see what you have been doing and demonstrating that you can change your habit.


Note to others:

What point is he making here that I am apparently unable or unwilling to grasp?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:08 pm

I was just asking you to commit to reasoned arguments against propositions you disagree with rather than merely dismissing them as contraptions. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8867
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:15 pm

felix dakat wrote:I was just asking you to commit to reasoned arguments against propositions you disagree with rather than merely dismissing them as contraptions. That shouldn't be hard to understand.


And how hard is it to understand that my preference is to take intellectual contraptions like this and explore them more substantively in regard to human interactions that come into conflict as a result of different assessments of God and religion. And, then, insofar as these assessments lead one to choose a moral narrative here and now in preparation for one's fate there and then.

Arguments I make in that discussion you can defend as either reasonable or attack as unreasonable.

Or, from my frame of mind, at least be more honest with yourself and ask why you seem so reluctant to go there.

Note to others:

Would anyone else be willing to exchange points of view regarding the main intention of this thread: to connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave as that is intertwined existentially with their belief about the fate of their soul/self on the other side of the grave.

That way Felix can level his accusations against me as they pertain to a set of circumstances we are all likely to be familiar with.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:29 pm

Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8867
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:33 pm

felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.



Note to others:

Well, never mind. =D>
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.



Note to others:

Well, never mind. =D>


Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself. Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value. But by the same lack of a standard, your criticisms of other's thinking have no value either. By your standard, which has no value, wasting time is all that is possible. As soon as you admit the possibility of value, you refute the basis of moral nihilism. But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8867
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:45 pm

What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8867
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby zinnat » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:10 pm

Wrong thread.
Last edited by zinnat on Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby zinnat » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:19 pm

Wrong thread.
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:21 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.



Note to others:

Well, never mind. =D>


Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself.


Again, choose a set of circumstances that revolve around the reason I created this thread -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- and, as the exchange unfolds, you can note to others how uncritical I am in regard to myself.

felix dakat wrote: Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value.


That's absurd. My point is that self-criticism in regard to the relationship between goals and behaviors out in the either/or world can be measured with a fair degree of precision. Jane is burdened with an unwanted pregnancy. Her goal is to abort it. She either does so successfully or she doesn't.

Or: Jane successfully aborts her fetus. John, a devout Catholic, criticizes her decision as a sin against God. But: How might "self-criticism" be different here? Does this God exist? Is abortion a sin to this God? Will He punish Jane for having the abortion? How are arguments/criticisms here judged with a fair degree of precision?

It's not a "lack of standards" in this context, but the extent to which any one particular standard can be defended such that criticism of it is always effectively rebutted.

And I challenge you to note how your own standards in regard in abortion and religion and God are not rooted in the manner in which I deem my own are on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

I don't refute the "possibility of value". I only suggest that the standards of "I" here are rooted more in dasein than in any particular rendition of a God, the God, my God.

Your own for example. Again, what exactly is it in regard to abortion? How did you come to acquire it? How was this acquisition more or less the embodiment of dasein?

Instead, you invariably reconfigure into stooge mode:

Moe wrote: But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.


What on Earth are you talking about here?

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a "contraption" more substantively.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:25 pm

Moe wrote:What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.


Note to others:

Why does he refuse to take these obtuse accusations against me to a discussion involving a set of circumstances where our respective moral philosophies can be examined more in detail, more descriptively, more substantively?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:

Note to others:

Well, never mind. =D>


Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself.


Again, choose a set of circumstances that revolve around the reason I created this thread -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- and, as the exchange unfolds, you can note to others how uncritical I am in regard to myself.

felix dakat wrote: Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value.


That's absurd. My point is that self-criticism in regard to the relationship between goals and behaviors out in the either/or world can be measured with a fair degree of precision. Jane is burdened with an unwanted pregnancy. Her goal is to abort it. She either does so successfully or she doesn't.

Or: Jane successfully aborts her fetus. John, a devout Catholic, criticizes her decision as a sin against God. But: How might "self-criticism" be different here? Does this God exist? Is abortion a sin to this God? Will He punish Jane for having the abortion? How are arguments/criticisms here judged with a fair degree of precision?

It's not a "lack of standards" in this context, but the extent to which any one particular standard can be defended such that criticism of it is always effectively rebutted.

And I challenge you to note how your own standards in regard in abortion and religion and God are not rooted in the manner in which I deem my own are on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

I don't refute the "possibility of value". I only suggest that the standards of "I" here are rooted more in dasein than in any particular rendition of a God, the God, my God.

Your own for example. Again, what exactly is it in regard to abortion? How did you come to acquire it? How was this acquisition more or less the embodiment of dasein?

Instead, you invariably reconfigure into stooge mode:

Moe wrote: But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.


What on Earth are you talking about here?

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a "contraption" more substantively.


Why would I? You haven't acknowledged that you have a habit of dismissing concepts as contraptions without showing that you have understood the concept or presenting arguments for why it should be rejected. You also dismiss arguments that you don't like by appealing to others asking "what on Earth does he mean?" You apparently think these insulting rhetorical devices constitute reasonable dialogue. This is all been pointed out to you a number of times by different people on this forum. But you don't seem to get it or make any attempt at changing your method. I've watched intelligent people go round and round with you and get nowhere. You find that satisfying. To me it looks like a waste of time which apparently as good as It gets for you as you await death in your meaningless world. No thanks.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8867
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:10 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Moe wrote:What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.


Note to others:

Why does he refuse to take these obtuse accusations against me to a discussion involving a set of circumstances where our respective moral philosophies can be examined more in detail, more descriptively, more substantively?

I've already told you. You refuse to comprehend. You are not a trustworthy interlocutor.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8867
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:08 pm

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a "contraption" more substantively.


Moe wrote: Why would I? You haven't acknowledged that you have a habit of dismissing concepts as contraptions without showing that you have understood the concept or presenting arguments for why it should be rejected. You also dismiss arguments that you don't like by appealing to others asking "what on Earth does he mean?" You apparently think these insulting rhetorical devices constitute reasonable dialogue. This is all been pointed out to you a number of times by different people on this forum. But you don't seem to get it or make any attempt at changing your method. I've watched intelligent people go round and round with you and get nowhere. You find that satisfying.


And around and around you go. Up in the clouds of "general accusations" against me. Your very own "intellectual contraptions" that ever and always make me the problem here. Stooge mode.

But in regard to your value judgments relating to a set of circumstances that involve your own thoughts and feeling about God and religion? How that part can precipitate contacts with others who have very different assessments of "morality here and now and immortality there and then"?

The part where you connect the dots between the bahaviors you choose on this side of the grave given your current assumptions about the fate of "I" on the other side?

The part where you discuss how your own value judgments, your own understanding of God and religion are not just a subjective "existential contraption" derived from dasein?

The part where you demonstrate how and why your own spiritual path is in fact that which all other rational and virtuous men and women obligated to take...with so much at stake on both side of the grave.

The whole point of the thread? No, you can't, don't, won't go there.

And yet, from my frame of mind, if you are going to level accusations about me "dismissing concepts as contraptions without showing that you have understood the concept or presenting arguments for why it should be rejected", would not attaching those concepts to our respective assessments of actual human interactions make your indictment that much more clearly understood? Isn't that precisely my point in suggesting that you do bring your accusations "down to earth"?

Moe wrote:To me it looks like a waste of time which apparently as good as It gets for you as you await death in your meaningless world. No thanks.


We all await death. And we all have an abundance of existential meaning embedded in the lives that we choose to live.

But only the religious objectivists are able to think themselves into believing that death is just the beginning for the "soul". And only the religious objectivists have a God or a Buddha to fall back on when attempting to grapple with the right thing or the enlightened to do on this side of the grave. That is precisely the font around which they can anchor the "real me".

I get that. I once believed it fiercely myself. But now my conclusion that my existence is essentially meaningless in what I presume to be a No God/No Religion world is derived from what "here and now" seems reasonable to me. That it makes for a rather grim outlook on life doesn't make it less reasonable.

Instead, all I can do is to come into threads like this this one and note the extent to which those who do believe in God and religion are able to relate to me why they believe what they do. And how they are able to demonstrate to me why I ought to believe it too. And then in the process being able to note how the arguments I make in my signature threads here -- the source of my own thinking -- are not nearly as reasonable as I think they are.

But: only in bringing our arguments out into the world that we live in -- circumstantially, existentially, descriptively.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:15 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Moe wrote:What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.


Note to others:

Why does he refuse to take these obtuse accusations against me to a discussion involving a set of circumstances where our respective moral philosophies can be examined more in detail, more descriptively, more substantively?

I've already told you. You refuse to comprehend. You are not a trustworthy interlocutor.


Okay, but here I'm after the insights of others. Perhaps they can reconfigure your words into a point that is clearer to me. Perhaps they might even be willing to imagine your own point by relating it to a set of circumstances in which my refusal to comprehend becomes more readily apparent. How, given my assessment of God and religion, relating to, say, an issue like abortion or social justice or homosexuality, it becomes clearer as to how I am not trustworthy.

You know, given that you won't go there yourself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: omar