on discussing god and religion

[phyllo]

Two contexts now?

OMG

[iambiguous]

Two contexts now?

OMG

In regard to God and religion, how could there not be two?

Or three if you count agnostics.

Which, come on, given the gap between what we think we know about God and religion here and now and all that there is to be known about them going back to an explanation for existence itself, we all really are anyway.

[phyllo]

Looks like a new use of the word 'context'.

Unless Biggus has been using it that way all along.

[phyllo]

A priest and an atheist walk into a bar.

That's a context. It can't be two contexts. That wouldn't make any sense.

[felix dakat]

Iambiguous has demonstrated on this thread for more than 5 years that he has a closed mind. So why are we still talking with him? What about his game of bait-and-switch is so fascinating?

Again: Are you or are you not going to examine in some detail the relationship between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, your thinking about death and its consequences, and your views on the relevance of God and religion in how this has played out for you given the life that you have lived so far.

That's the whole point of this thread. Where does the part where I bait-and-switch come in?

Why? So I can hear again from you how it is nothing but an intellectual contraption? Such a clever response from you. You could say that to every religious or philosophical or scientific idea in history. It wouldn't require you to do anything like comprehending what any of the greatest thinkers of history had to say. Just trot out the same old shit time after time.
Don't you ever tire of your narrow little frame of reference? Transcendence = contraption. There. I saved you the trouble. As if you would understand what I'm talking about.
"What on Earth are you talking about"? Again, I saved you the trouble.
I think the fascination of phyllo and Karpal Tunnel and myself with you derives from the paradox of interacting with an intelligence that has no insight into itself. You are dasein as self contradiction. But, there's something ugly about playing with you. Like poking Quasimodo with a stick.

[iambiguous]

Why? So I can hear again from you how it is nothing but an intellectual contraption? Such a clever response from you. You could say that to every religious or philosophical or scientific idea in history. It wouldn't require you to do anything like comprehending what any of the greatest thinkers of history had to say. Just trot out the same old shit time after time.
Don't you ever tire of your narrow little frame of reference? Transcendence = contraption. There. I saved you the trouble. As if you would understand what I'm talking about.
"What on Earth are you talking about"? Again, I saved you the trouble.
I think the fascination of phyllo and Karpal Tunnel and myself with you derives from the paradox of interacting with an intelligence that has no insight into itself. You are dasein as self contradiction. But, there's something ugly about playing with you. Like poking Quasimodo with a stick.

Again:

Are you or are you not going to examine in some detail the relationship between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, your thinking about death and its consequences, and your views on the relevance of God and religion in how this has played out for you given the life that you have lived so far.

Give it a go. If only prompting me to respond exactly as you predict above. Thus allowing you to bellow "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!!"

[iambiguous]

Looks like a new use of the word 'context'.

Unless Biggus has been using it that way all along.

So, is it more that I succeed in reducing you down to crap like this, or that you continue to allow me to.

[felix dakat]

Why? So I can hear again from you how it is nothing but an intellectual contraption? Such a clever response from you. You could say that to every religious or philosophical or scientific idea in history. It wouldn't require you to do anything like comprehending what any of the greatest thinkers of history had to say. Just trot out the same old shit time after time.
Don't you ever tire of your narrow little frame of reference? Transcendence = contraption. There. I saved you the trouble. As if you would understand what I'm talking about.
"What on Earth are you talking about"? Again, I saved you the trouble.
I think the fascination of phyllo and Karpal Tunnel and myself with you derives from the paradox of interacting with an intelligence that has no insight into itself. You are dasein as self contradiction. But, there's something ugly about playing with you. Like poking Quasimodo with a stick.

Again:

Are you or are you not going to examine in some detail the relationship between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, your thinking about death and its consequences, and your views on the relevance of God and religion in how this has played out for you given the life that you have lived so far.

Give it a go. If only prompting me to respond exactly as you predict above. Thus allowing you to bellow "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!!"

Being a moral nihilist I guess you don't understand that people engage in discourse because they hope some reward i.e.greater good may come out of it. "I told you so" ain't a good enough pay-off for the trouble. You'll have to do better. Oh but that would require a greater good, so you can't cuz values must be meaningless to nihilist you. Geez man, I'm sorry.

[felix dakat]

Why? So I can hear again from you how it is nothing but an intellectual contraption? Such a clever response from you. You could say that to every religious or philosophical or scientific idea in history. It wouldn't require you to do anything like comprehending what any of the greatest thinkers of history had to say. Just trot out the same old shit time after time.
Don't you ever tire of your narrow little frame of reference? Transcendence = contraption. There. I saved you the trouble. As if you would understand what I'm talking about.
"What on Earth are you talking about"? Again, I saved you the trouble.
I think the fascination of phyllo and Karpal Tunnel and myself with you derives from the paradox of interacting with an intelligence that has no insight into itself. You are dasein as self contradiction. But, there's something ugly about playing with you. Like poking Quasimodo with a stick.

Again:

Are you or are you not going to examine in some detail the relationship between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, your thinking about death and its consequences, and your views on the relevance of God and religion in how this has played out for you given the life that you have lived so far.

Give it a go. If only prompting me to respond exactly as you predict above. Thus allowing you to bellow "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!!"

Being a moral nihilist I guess you don't understand that people engage in discourse because they hope some reward i.e.greater good may come out of it. "I told you so" ain't a good enough pay-off for the trouble. You'll have to do better. Oh but that would require a greater good, so you can't cuz values must be meaningless to nihilist you. Geez man, I'm sorry.

[iambiguous]

Being a moral nihilist I guess you don't understand that people engage in discourse because they hope some reward i.e.greater good may come out of it. "I told you so" ain't a good enough pay-off for the trouble. You'll have to do better. Oh but that would require a greater good, so you can't cuz values must be meaningless to nihilist you. Geez man, I'm sorry.

Next!!!

[Karpel Tunnel]

Iambiguous has demonstrated on this thread for more than 5 years that he has a closed mind. So why are we still talking with him? What about his game of bait-and-switch is so fascinating?

I think 'what is going on' is more complicated than just 'bait and switch'. And it's also a situation where others have gotten drawn in or may be drawn in. The issue of having a real conversation with iamb died for me quite a long time ago. The phenomenon of someone taking the positions he does (which are not consistent with each other nor with his behavior) and his interactions with people here, I've actually found generated a lot of interesting thoughts for me. Apart from the iamb in each of us, I think we all have to deal with people who present themselves a certain way, but really are doing something else. When one meets the person IRL it is easier to determine what they are up to. Not always possible or easy, but easier. We can come more comfortably to a conclusion about motive, what they don't want to look at, what they are hiding, perhaps from themselves also, in fact usually. Here it is much easier for him to control what is seen - though many of the contradictions come through anyway. So, it's kind of a generalized training in dealing with the pattern. When there was a part of me that thought 'just around the next corner, some part of what I am saying may reach him or he'll at least acknowledge X', thinking even the minimal that it might happen, then it was a serious waste of time. I have no such illusion now. He will never admit or concede anything
unless
something rather big happens in his personal life.
Or he has some ongoing change that can whittle away at some of his beliefs, but again coming from perhaps a relationship IRL.
But words on a screen have not gotten even a minimal concession that I have seen over many years about anything. He could be a bot.

I can play chess against a computer online, and have, to train for real games. Though here it's more like pointing out the habitual heuristics of the program to those who want to play with it. And then mulling over what is happening, in conversation with others, and what might really be going on. I think that is useful. Because that happens all the time irl.

It should be added that as long as it doesn't entail him looking at his own assumptions and behavior, he can make good points. Also he does seem to integrate ideas over time. They don't change his positions, but it keeps the necessary jujitsu fresh.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Being a moral nihilist I guess you don't understand that people engage in discourse because they hope some reward i.e.greater good may come out of it. "I told you so" ain't a good enough pay-off for the trouble. You'll have to do better. Oh but that would require a greater good, so you can't cuz values must be meaningless to nihilist you. Geez man, I'm sorry.

And it should be emphasized: look at what he thinks would be rewarding for you. There is no reason a moral nihilist would assume that is people's primary motivation or even a motivation at all. That he assumes it is could mean that this is a strong motive for him. It could mean he thinks people in general but not him, as the exception, are in this to say things like that. It is not clear which. But it is telling that he thinks this would be motivation. Motivation to try something you have surely already tried and perhaps more than once. If you're old enough to get the reference, it's a bit like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football. He may not realize he is like Lucy there. He may not share her motivations. The result, however, is the same. Moral nihilists should not have blinders to the complicated motivations around them. In fact, it moral nihilism could potentially allow them to see complicated motivations where others are more partisan.

In any case...



And, of course, he can simply come up with another way to not have the discussion move forward - he has a few methods - and thus avoid the I told you so.

[felix dakat]

Yeah well you and Phillo seem to be smart guys. Therefore, You shouldn't be wasting your time on this thread.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yeah well you and Phillo seem to be smart guys. Therefore, You shouldn't be wasting your time on this thread.

point taken

[iambiguous]

The issue of having a real conversation with iamb died for me quite a long time ago.

Okay, again and again and again:

Let's focus in on a context [you pick it] in which both of us have, existentially, here and now, acquired our own personal reactions as to the morality of particular behaviors in conflict over value judgments. Let's explore how our thinking came to be as it is and how that thinking might prompt us to respond to those in the conflict seeking our advice. Finally, relating how our thinking about God and religion enter into our thinking about everything else.

In other words, precisely the sort of thing I am looking for from those here who do believe in an objective morality derived from God.

The point? Well, an important point [for me, for others] would be for you to note in more detail the parts embedded in my side of the exchange which confirm [for you, for others] why I am not able to sustain a "real conversation".

In regard to the point of the thread itself, what does that mean?

Or, you can focus in on my original exchange with zinnat re the OP. Was I sustaining a real conversation with him? Or, right from the start, can you point to examples that might have led him to conclude the same and thus abandon the exchange.

Note to phyllo and felix:

Feel free to contribute.

[iambiguous]

In practice, new atheists you find on youtube arguing against theism or in articles online or in 'newspapers' or arguing with theists online do share, generally, large chunks of a belief system, often with very similar epistemologies, ontologies (and not just in the negative), modes of interaction, and even attributions of blame for a variety of ills.

Again, one can note what one believes about God, or thinks is true about God, or claims to know about God.

And atheists can then challenge this by putting the burden of proof on those who argue for the existence of a God, the God, my God.

But the bottom line is that whatever you believe about the either existence or nonexistence of something like God, it is this belief itself that is going to predispose you to choose behaviors. And it is these behaviors that are going to produce actual consequences in turn. Some relatively trivial, others relatively calamitous.

That's why in regard to things like God and religion [where the consequences can be truly catastrophic] the burden of proof becomes all that much more profoundly relevant.

Only with God and religion, there is so much at stake -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- that belief becomes hopelessly intertwined with faith. What you think is true begins to merge subjunctively with what you want to be true in order to sustain some measure of equanimity. About both the here and now and the there and then.

It all seems rather hopeless.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of Life
Daniel Hill argues that without God, life would be meaningless.

But why should there be an overarching purpose for one’s life? Why shouldn’t one just have lots of small purposes, for example to write this article, to pass an exam, to get one’s girlfriend a nice birthday present?

Isn't this how it basically works for most of us? From day to day, we focus in on the people and things that we impart meaning to and are in turn meaningful to us. In the only way that really matters from day to day to day: for all practical purposes.

In other words, meaning revolving around friendship and work and sports and the arts and the hundreds of distractions available to us in the course of, among other things, choosing one rather than another "lifestyle".

It is perfectly possible [if you've got the means] to go from year to year to year and hardly give a second thought to the "overarching meaning" of it all. And, here, most will just subsume that in one or another God or spiritual plane. Let others tell us who we are, why we are, and how we should think about the "big picture". The "little" meanings we act on, the things we enjoy doing and the interactions we have with others need be as far as it goes.

Then it's just a matter of how long you can sustain this before "something happens" and you find yourself having to fit it all into something bigger. Like, for example, the world around you if the coronavirus explodes into the worst case scenario. And you live smack dab in the middle of one of the "hotspots".

It seems as if we all do have small purposes in life, for this is no more than the claim that we act intentionally. If we never did any action on purpose we should not survive very long, for it is not only the case that most people work (at least partly) in order to get money in order to get food and drink, but also that we do such mundane actions as going to the refrigerator and cupboard in order to get food and drink. I do not think that there need be an overarching purpose for one’s life, but I think one does want assurance that the small purposes one has are significant.

Yes, we may want this, but only a very small percentage of the human species actually make a concerted effort to dig -- to really dig -- deeper. Though, here, as philosophers, we do struggle to pull everything together so as to anchor it onto one or another "overarching" foundation.

I simply suggest this has more to do with paths we are predisposed existentially to go down. And the role that human psychology seems to play in nudging us in turn to find things we can feel certain about when the boat begins to rock.

Here, though, I suspect the real impetus is not so much what we think and feel, but what our actual sets of circumstances are. If the life we live is relatively stable and prosperous and rewarding, there is less incentive to dig deeper into why that is. Only when, for whatever reason, things start to totter or the good things start to come undone, does it seem more compelling to understand why. So, if the "little" meanings in our lives are in jeopardy, finding a bigger meaning may well be the only recourse. And that usually takes the form of a religious or a political anchor. And hardly ever a philosophical font. Not given the manner in which philosophy is pursued these days by the "serious" cadre.

If my purpose in my actions was just to continue to exist for as long as possible I think most people would want to class such a life as meaningless, for, unless I held the view that simple existence was a good thing there wouldn’t seem to be any point in prolonging an existence that I was not using for any other purpose.

Again, this would seem to be based almost entirely on how satisfying and content you are in living your life from day to day...without the need for a more substantial meaning.

After all, if your life is bursting at the seams with great experiences...great food, a great career, great sex, a great family, great distractions, great opportunities, great music etc....why call that "meaningless"?

[iambiguous]

“I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist.”
― Albert Camus, Notebooks 1951-1959

Consider...

There was the man that he was, there and then, in regard to behaviors that he chose. Either alone or among others. He did not believe in God and so those behaviors were derived from that assumption. And we must never forget it's the behaviors that we choose that precipitate consequences for others. As long as they remain only "in our head" others are reasonably removed from any consequences.

But: just because you do believe in a No God world does not make the existence of God any more or less certain. It all comes down to the extent to which, as with believers, you have faith in what you do believe about No God.

In other words, does the definition of "atheist" include the capacity to demonstrate that in fact there is no God? Nope, not in my dictionary.

Me, I always go back to the gap between what we think about God and all that can be, must be known about Him going back to the explanation for why there is any existence at all. And why this existence and not another?

In this sense, for all practical purposes, we are all agnostics.

[iambiguous]

The Gods of Spinoza & Teilhard de Chardin
Derek Harrison compares radically alternative visions of the absolute.

Spinoza is variously identified as a rationalist, a monist, a pantheist, a materialist, a determinist, a stoic. None of these is wrong, and none is complete in itself. He has also been called “the most impious atheist that even lived,” and found guilty of “abominable heresies” and “monstrous deeds” (taken from the Hebrew ritual by which he was excommunicated.”

Imagine being called all of these things and then, to the extent that they are applicable, being asked by someone like me to explain how each description can be, as well, attributed to the things that you choose to do out in the world with others. In particular [for me] the part that revolves around pantheism.

This is a frame of mind that, with respect to God, religion and life that you live, I have never been able to come even close to wrapping my head around. With a God/the God, I am at least able to imagine an actual entity, a particular being up there/out there able to explain everything else. A "thing" that one can turn to for the "final answer".

With pantheism how does one even begin to describe how it actually all unfolds? Being "at one" with the "universe as a whole"? The divine universe? The cosmos itself as the ontological and teleological font you entrust "I" to both before and after you die? It simply does not make any practical sense at all. Not to me. You explain nothing beyond "that's just how it is".

Teilhard’s reputation is equally varied, encompassing words that are not usually found together: seer, scientist, mystic, passionate thinker, traveler, explorer, a “seeker in love with all of life.”

Okay, but back again to this: In what context? If, with respect to God and religion, you are an advocate for his line of reasoning, how does it all come together when you are immersed in a set of circumstances in which because you think like you do, you choose this behavior rather than another?

[Exuberant Teleportation]

The Gods of Spinoza

^ The God of Spinoza realizes every possibility extending from infinite to infinite. There is always a bigger fish. By letting go of physical/emotional bondage, we begin to understand why we act as we do and, even though we become our own cause through reason, being our own cause is more free than being controlled by the effects of lower nature. Mind is eternal. Nobody can hate God. God comes to know himself through us. Evolution manifests all attributes of God over time until we reach the ultimate divine station.

[iambiguous]

The Gods of Spinoza

^ The God of Spinoza realizes every possibility extending from infinite to infinite. There is always a bigger fish. By letting go of physical/emotional bondage, we begin to understand why we act as we do and, even though we become our own cause through reason, being our own cause is more free than being controlled by the effects of lower nature. Mind is eternal. Nobody can hate God. God comes to know himself through us. Evolution manifests all attributes of God over time until we reach the ultimate divine station.

And you actually go about demonstrating this to others...how?

[Exuberant Teleportation]

All of the possibilities for every world model have somehow been pre-contained in the quantum source, what cosmologist Micho Kaku calls countless genesis coming from an ocean of Nirvana. Nirvana is timeless, and is mind, God's mind, looking at every outpouring, and shaping it. We do this ourselves for God too, as through us, God comes to know himself.

The very fact and miracle that we are here shows that there is purpose, there is meaning, and there is destiny, even destiny to make it more perfect than it ever was before. Time will make space perfect.

[iambiguous]

All of the possibilities for every world model have somehow been pre-contained in the quantum source, what cosmologist Micho Kaku calls countless genesis coming from an ocean of Nirvana. Nirvana is timeless, and is mind, God's mind, looking at every outpouring, and shaping it. We do this ourselves for God too, as through us, God comes to know himself.

The very fact and miracle that we are here shows that there is purpose, there is meaning, and there is destiny, even destiny to make it more perfect than it ever was before. Time will make space perfect.

And you actually go about demonstrating this to others...how?

[Exuberant Teleportation]

Man would always be in a very limited position if he never made a leap of faith.

[iambiguous]

On discussing God and religion in the age of the coronavirus:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opin ... e=Homepage

The arguments are made. Then the reactions to the arguments. Then the part where the reactions revolve in large part around your actual set of circumstances intertwined in your faith or your philosophy of life.

Here and now.