Atheists should shut up!

[Ecmandu]

Atheism is a very simple belief. People often describe god as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

However, the most important “Omni” is omnibenevolent.

Without the last one, none of the other three matter to people... omnibenevolent is the ONLY omnistate that means anything to anyone!

All you have to do to scientifically verify this state is to ask yourself “is my consent being violated in any way?”

If it is, an omnibenevolent being doesn’t exist.

Thus: atheism

Can an omnibenevolent being ever exist?

Perhaps. But we know that such a being has never previously existed.

[surreptitious75]

Omnibenevolence is generally not included with the other three omnis and so cannot be the most important one
They are all however assumed values with no real awareness of the relationship that exists between them at all
Else it would be quickly realised that omnipotence and omnibenevolence for example are actually incompatible

[Arcturus Descending]

Whoo, English lesson, feels like work.

Ok, 'believe' is a verb, as in "I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky." A verb is a 'doing' word. As in "Hey Arc, what do you do in the mornings..?" "Well Tab, I - insert verb here, for example 'wake up' or 'watch' (the news)."

A noun is the name of something. Tab is a noun, so is Arcturus. Verbs also have noun forms. Usually they are just the verb+ing, like the names of activities such as 'playing tennis' which is handy. For example, I like ice-cream (noun), my wife (noun), and playing tennis (noun form of verb). Sure, I could just say "I like Tennis." But maybe I don't like Tennis much to watch, but I do like to play, so saying " I like playing Tennis." is closer to the truth for me. Sometimes nouns are different from the verbs though. Think-> (a) thought. Or know-> (some) knowledge. Or Believe-> (have/hold a) belief.

So 'belief' is a noun form of believe. As in Joe believes that 1) fairies exist. 2) fairies have wings. 3) Tinkerbell is a popular fairy name. So Joe has 3 beliefs about fairies. Think of them as 3 bits of paper with 'wings' 'exist' and 'Tinkerbell' written on them and Joe has them in his pocket. Except the pocket is in his brain. It's a fairy brain pocket.

Joe however, is sceptical about Trolls. He doesn't believe that 1) trolls exist in the wild. 2) or that bridges have trolls. 3) or that there used to be a troll under his bed that stole his socks even though his mum told him that once.

Joe's Troll brain pocket has 3 pieces of paper with 'don't exist' 'not under bridges' and 'not under beds' written on them. 3 beliefs about trolls.

Thank you for the lesson, Tab. It was very edifying.

What do You believe was Camus' meaning by the below:

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

Was he addressing the atheist here? Was he saying that, despite that, he could never be certain either way?
Was he addressing those who need to label everything?

[Tab]

well, my first instinct was to say,

"Eh, he was a philosopher, he got paid to say weird paradoxical shit like that."

But giving him the benefit of the doubt, if still no points for clarity, perhaps he was saying he's like me, agnostic. I don't believe in god, but I don't go round making a big deal about it. It's like mobile phones, I get why people have them, but I don't like them, so I don't have one. I'm not a rampant Aphoneist.

Was he anti-labelist. Is labelling everything bad..? Hard to make tea if you just throw random stuff in the pot and add a random boiling liquid. But I get what you mean, imposing labels on things that may not be comfortable with them is not always good.

Camus said other stuff in the same vein though.

“I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't -- than live my life as if there isn't (a God) and die to find out there is”

Which sounds awfully like he took Pascal's wager. Which is something I don't agree with because of the hidden costs to abiding by a religion you don't believe in. It's not free, you do have something to lose.

I dunno. Depends what he meant by "living a life as if there was a god" if he meant a life of lip-service and hypocrisy where each virtuous act is done purely from a fear of punishment and/or the expectation of a reward at the end... then fuck that guy frankly. But if he meant a life that was 'good' and lived that way because you've decided living that way is a good thing in and of itself, with or without a god at the end - then yeah, I think that is probably the way I try to live also. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much.

God goes a long way to making 'living a good life' meaningful. Without a god, all lives are ultimately equally meaningless, and all ways of living equal. Saint or serial killer, doesn't matter. Get born, do stuff, die. Same same. No scoreboard, no points, no rubric.

Without god, you have to do all the heavy existentialist lifting by yourself, and create your own meaning. It's hard work to live a good life without a lil' angel on your shoulder, especially when you get overtaken by complete bastards. And I'd like to be able to put my hand on my heart and say that it is this element of hard work that makes it an admirable choice, to live life on hard mode rather than regular, but again, get born do stuff die. Same same. Important to note here I mean actively choosing to be good, not simply being good by default because you are too cowardly to do bad. I mean being the good monster.

That's a bit bleak. I think one of the major keys to happiness is finding enough good people to surround yourself with who will accept you because, by being good yourself, you've kinda paid the entrance fee. You have to be good first though, you don't get into the good people club by being an arsehole at the door but promising the bouncer you'll suddenly become good inside later. Good people are selfish that way. But sensibly so.

Damn I forgot the question lol.

Ok. If I (gun to the head etc.) had to make a choice - no particular religious trappings required, just a yes or no on the god question - between being a theist, or an atheist, I'd choose theist. Because of the two, it's the more hopeful choice. A theist on death, has the possibilty of being proven right, but an atheist only ever has the possibility of being proven wrong. That makes atheism the more stupid choice. So maybe Camus was just implying atheists are dumbasses.

[tentative]

[s][/s]Arc and Tab, can I weigh in on this? The cool thing about Camus is that he leaves you finding your own answers. I can agree or disagree with anything he ever said and he doesn't give a shit. It's that implied dunno that makes him his own giant.

Theists and atheists.... They are all fucked in the head. Maybe it isn't their fault but I'm sort of big on personal responsibility and I don't cut them any slack. Both positions are based on fear - fear that there is a god and fear that there isn't. It is the perfect solution to giving up freedom and accepting slavery. Hey, it's not my fault cause God is - isn't. The pile of excuses for absentee responsibility approaches infinity. Is this a bit harsh? Probably. But the fuckers won't stay off my lawn so fuck them very much.

Agnosticism... It really is fairly simple but requires a lot of courage to say "I DON'T KNOW" and then get on with it. "Oh my! life has no meaning." Bullshit. You have to CREATE meaning for yourself. Yeah, it ain't easy. It's damn hard work but it's doable - mostly. How to find meaning? Damned if I know, but I've managed somehow and it has nothing to do with anyone but me. It's nice to recognize others who have managed to thread the needle but ultimately, I'm just me. Nothing special and I accept responsibility for that.

On labels... The problem with labels is that they create edges and boundaries. As an agnostic I avoid labeling wherever possible but labels do have localized utility. It's difficult to avoid is - isn't. Still, the larger picture remains in the "I don't know" field of view.

So how's that? I do enjoy babbling now and then.

[Ecmandu]

Omnibenevolence is generally not included with the other three omnis and so cannot be the most important one
They are all however assumed values with no real awareness of the relationship that exists between them at all
Else it would be quickly realised that omnipotence and omnibenevolence for example are actually incompatible

Actually, omnibenevolence is THE very most important one —- which is why it’s not mentioned. It’s the most important and can be immediately falsified by even a fucking stone on the ground!

Actually, it is mentioned in EVERY religion is “god is good”

[iambiguous]

Actually, omnibenevolence is THE very most important one —- which is why it’s not mentioned. It’s the most important and can be immediately falsified by even a fucking stone on the ground!

Actually, it is mentioned in EVERY religion is “god is good”

This reflects the futility of trying to approach religion as though it actually did revolve around being reasonable.

The problem here of course is that the religious folks can always fall back on God working in mysterious ways. Sure, it seems that, over and over again, God is really a rather sadistic son of a bitch. Look at the coronavirus. Or extinction events.

But what can we mere mortals possibly know about "the will of God".

Besides, only with religion do we attain both immortality and salvation.

It's God or oblivion, right?

[surreptitious75]

The problem with labels is that they create edges and boundaries

Those edges and boundaries however are merely descriptive as no definition is absolute
Also on balance it is better to have some definition [ even a loose one ] than none at all

[surreptitious75]

I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist - Notebooks I95I - I959

I dont know whether or not God exists and I dont like labels

I dont know whether or not God exists and I dont really care

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous,

To me, immortality is a given. God has no part in this given, just like god didn’t create a triangle.

It’s been said that the whole point of philosophy is to teach us how to die... I disagree. The whole point is to teach us how to live forever.

[surreptitious75]

The point of philosophy is to make sure that the right type of questions are being asked
But accepting death is certainly something to consider given it will happen to everyone

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous,

To me, immortality is a given. God has no part in this given, just like god didn’t create a triangle.

It’s been said that the whole point of philosophy is to teach us how to die... I disagree. The whole point is to teach us how to live forever.

In other words, if you believe something about God "in your head" that [apparently] need be as far you go by way of demonstrating that it is true.

This, in my view, is predicated either on the manner in which your thinking is derived from what may or may not be a "mental condition", or you are of sound mind but just another run of mill objectivist.

To have "a point" about immortality is no where near the same thing as being able to show others how, given the things they choose to think, feel, say, and do, will actually result in them living forever.

[surreptitious75]

Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true

[Ecmandu]

Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true

It’s basic logic.

If we ever cease to exist in the future, we would cease to exist now, as the we now is a subset of our we forever.

Think about it: YOU die a trillion years from now. That means YOU’D be dead right now as now is a subset of the totality of YOU.

God didn’t create this and god can’t destroy it.

[tentative]

Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true

It’s basic logic.

If we ever cease to exist in the future, we would cease to exist now, as the we now is a subset of our we forever.

Think about it: YOU die a trillion years from now. That means YOU’D be dead right now as now is a subset of the totality of YOU.

God didn’t create this and god can’t destroy it.

Ummm... Your basic logic depends heavily on your assumptions that YOU have to exist in an afterlife. There just might be a different immortality assuming that YOU cease to exist upon death and yet remain immortal. Every atom, every particle of what was YOU can never be destroyed because all that was YOU is a subset of the universe no matter what forms those atoms may take a trillion years from now. The universe may not recognize any such YOU, only the ebb and flo of energy/material states over billions of years.

It's basic logic.

[Ecmandu]

Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true

It’s basic logic.

If we ever cease to exist in the future, we would cease to exist now, as the we now is a subset of our we forever.

Think about it: YOU die a trillion years from now. That means YOU’D be dead right now as now is a subset of the totality of YOU.

God didn’t create this and god can’t destroy it.

Ummm... Your basic logic depends heavily on your assumptions that YOU have to exist in an afterlife. There just might be a different immortality assuming that YOU cease to exist upon death and yet remain immortal. Every atom, every particle of what was YOU can never be destroyed because all that was YOU is a subset of the universe no matter what forms those atoms may take a trillion years from now. The universe may not recognize any such YOU, only the ebb and flo of energy/material states over billions of years.

It's basic logic.

I commune with the spirit world everyday, and have for the past 12 years. I know continuity of consciousness exists after.

[Ecmandu]

Actually, I want to expound upon my last post:

viewtopic.php?p=2761045#p2761045

If continuity of consciousness ever dies for YOU!!! You wouldn’t be here right now, as the YOU right now is merely a subset of that continuity of consciousness.

Obviously, if we just become atoms that disperse, we are no longer a continuity of consciousness. Which means that our past is erased as well. But! From that perspective we are in our past right now, and we’re still here.

I don’t think you understand what true death is:

We!!!!!!!! Never existed!!!

[Tab]

So how's that? I do enjoy babbling now and then.

We always pretty much agreed on stuff, don't see any reason to stop now.

So I've had 5 years to mull over what little of the Dao managed to sink into my bones from back in the day. Now the kids have grown up a bit, and my son has read the Dao as well, he turned to me after he'd finished and said "I kinda get it now, why you've let me make up my own mind on a lot of stuff, not bullshitted me about the big stuff and not really set a lot of rules. You were being non-coercive."

I really hadn't thought about it much to be honest - I'm not really the kind of person to ever have sat down and said to myself, "Hah, now to carry out my plan to raise Daoist superchild." But seems like that's what I've been doing lol. I can't take much of the credit, beyond paying attention, not shirking the hard conversational topics, and letting them run and fall on their asses. My kids were always good kids. For which I am eternally grateful.

[tentative]

Actually, I want to expound upon my last post:

viewtopic.php?p=2761045#p2761045

If continuity of consciousness ever dies for YOU!!! You wouldn’t be here right now, as the YOU right now is merely a subset of that continuity of consciousness.

Obviously, if we just become atoms that disperse, we are no longer a continuity of consciousness. Which means that our past is erased as well. But! From that perspective we are in our past right now, and we’re still here.

I don’t think you understand what true death is:

We!!!!!!!! Never existed!!!

I really don't know how to get through to you that your logic is built on sand. I'm sure that you believe in something called "a continuity of consciousness" but forgive me, I and a lot of other folks aren't convinced based on your say so. When you can summon someone from your spirit world with tangible proof of an afterlife then perhaps I'll believe as you do. Until then, I'm quite comfortable saying "I don't know."

Hopefully, you can see that we are playing the "I say potato, you say...." game. It is the ultimate in futility so I'll just bow out. Have a nice day.

[tentative]

So how's that? I do enjoy babbling now and then.

We always pretty much agreed on stuff, don't see any reason to stop now.

So I've had 5 years to mull over what little of the Dao managed to sink into my bones from back in the day. Now the kids have grown up a bit, and my son has read the Dao as well, he turned to me after he'd finished and said "I kinda get it now, why you've let me make up my own mind on a lot of stuff, not bullshitted me about the big stuff and not really set a lot of rules. You were being non-coercive."

I really hadn't thought about it much to be honest - I'm not really the kind of person to ever have sat down and said to myself, "Hah, now to carry out my plan to raise Daoist superchild." But seems like that's what I've been doing lol. I can't take much of the credit, beyond paying attention, not shirking the hard conversational topics, and letting them run and fall on their asses. My kids were always good kids. For which I am eternally grateful.

So sending you that Daoist translation planted a seed. Now, you are stuck with a two-headed alligator. Wonderful! I raised three of 'em and they are whole people who will always be survivors to the bitter end. That's pretty much all we can ask for. So go ahead and be a proud parent (no bumper stickers on the car). Just remember that the kids grew up as much in spite of us as opposed to because of us...

[Ecmandu]

Actually, I want to expound upon my last post:

viewtopic.php?p=2761045#p2761045

If continuity of consciousness ever dies for YOU!!! You wouldn’t be here right now, as the YOU right now is merely a subset of that continuity of consciousness.

Obviously, if we just become atoms that disperse, we are no longer a continuity of consciousness. Which means that our past is erased as well. But! From that perspective we are in our past right now, and we’re still here.

I don’t think you understand what true death is:

We!!!!!!!! Never existed!!!

I really don't know how to get through to you that your logic is built on sand. I'm sure that you believe in something called "a continuity of consciousness" but forgive me, I and a lot of other folks aren't convinced based on your say so. When you can summon someone from your spirit world with tangible proof of an afterlife then perhaps I'll believe as you do. Until then, I'm quite comfortable saying "I don't know."

Hopefully, you can see that we are playing the "I say potato, you say...." game. It is the ultimate in futility so I'll just bow out. Have a nice day.

Continuity of consciousness is an elementary concept.

It’s self evident: you remember that it was YOU who did that when YOU were ten years old.

If YOU ever cease to exist, then the YOU now couldn’t be here, as the YOU now is an extension of the totality.

I know you’re trying to sound clever, as an antagonist, arguing for the sake of arguing itself...

The logic is flawless. It’s also borne of many peoples direct experience (though not yours)

[Tab]

Must admit Ecmandu, I've never really gotten a grasp of your - eh can't even think of a name that fits - theory.

Do you mean somehow that as we age, or if that's a contextually meaningless concept, move through time, all the past iterations of our consciousness, all those momentary holographic 'me-nows' are somehow stored and embodied..? And that our 'deaths' or otherwise 'ceasings to be' would obviously obliviate these and yet we still constantly experience these me-nows in every moment and from this we must somehow deduce that we can't possibly have died in some future 'yet to be' because we are still here in the present, experiencing me-nows already stored and embodied by some still existent future self..?

Plz more explains plz.

[Ecmandu]

Must admit Ecmandu, I've never really gotten a grasp of your - eh can't even think of a name that fits - theory.

Do you mean somehow that as we age, or if that's a contextually meaningless concept, move through time, all the past iterations of our consciousness, all those momentary holographic 'me-nows' are somehow stored and embodied..? And that our 'deaths' or otherwise 'ceasings to be' would obviously obliviate these and yet we still constantly experience these me-nows in every moment and from this we must somehow deduce that we can't possibly have died in some future 'yet to be' because we are still here in the present, experiencing me-nows already stored and embodied by some still existent future self..?

Plz more explains plz.

I’ll tell you something about this:

I don’t believe in past incarnations.

I think we are magnets (resonant frequencies) drawing from an infinity of memories that never die.

I think this is a confusion of Buddhism — that our memories of these lives mean that those memories are ours!

In fact, I’m positive of this.

We are each individual “YOUS”

That cannot, nor ever will be taken away from us.

[Ecmandu]

Read my last post!

I’m going to tell you a story you may not believe.

I had a panic disorder that started when I was 16 years old. I had this disorder for 11 years straight. Most people talk about having a panic attack that lasts a few hours a few times a year.

I can tell you! This was not my experience. I had a panic attack 24 hours a day for 365 days of the year for 11 years straight.

Panic attacks make you feel like you are on the verge of death every second.

Is it any wonder that feeling like I was dying all the time, that I declared, “death is my teacher”?

I met death 14 years later. That’s an experience I’ll never forget.

To me, these experiences are illusion and not reality, to me, god and death are just PEOPLE!!!

Death is mean as fuck, but resurrected me 3 times after people murdered me... not god... death resurrected me.

Death liked me because of my teaching that the solution to ethics was to make it as easy to commit suicide and homicide as possible and whoever survives is fit to survive. Actually, death is my best friend.

Like I said, death is a cruel, cruel teacher.

At the ripe age of 43, I have become insanely wise, wise enough to know that death is trying to cause enough of a stir to get god to intervene and send everyone to heaven. That’s why death tortures and torments people. For the greater good.

Now, you must understand again, my perspective is that these beings aren’t embodied archetypes, but just people, people with lots of power, but not enough power to be the non consent violators of existence.

And they know that I know this.

So we have me death and god, me being able to pull the veil on this narrative and say they’re full of shit.

I’ve met every conceivable god, and judged them as all full of shit, and they respect me for teaching them this. Every being likes clarity.

So that’s some of my story that I told you, that you wouldn’t believe.

I was deaths greatest student.

[surreptitious75]

You make these ridiculous claims all the time but you cannot provide any evidence for them
The reason for this is because they are obviously unfalsifiable but I also think they are false

Are you trying to convince yourself or everyone else they are true because if its the latter nobody believes you you know
I would say that the panic attacks you experienced are responsible for the way you are now thinking and no other reason